alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 511/2013Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 511/2013 of 3 June 2013 establishing the standard import values for determining            the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 511/2013                     

# of 3 June 2013

# establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural                           markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation)(1),                        

Having regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application                           of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors(2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations,                              the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products                              and periods stipulated in Annex XVI, Part A thereto.

(2)The standard import value is calculated each working day, in accordance with Article 136(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU)                              No 543/2011, taking into account variable daily data. Therefore this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its                              publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

The standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to                     this Regulation.                  

# Article 2U.K.

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*.                  

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 3 June 2013.

*For the Commission, On behalf of the President*,                           

Jerzy Plewa                            

*Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development*                            

## ANNEXU.K.Standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

1

OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.                           

2

OJ L 157, 15.6.2011, p. 1.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JU LY 17, 2014

NO. 03

- 12

- 00442

- CR

Eugene Hill, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 264TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, PE MBERTON, AND FIELD

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE PURYEAR

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction entered by the trial court. Having reviewed

the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the

trial court’s judgment . Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment of conviction

.

Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs is made.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM THE J. B.
WILLIAMS HOLDINGS, INC. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED JULY
1,  2000  AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY  BY  REFERENCE  TO SUCH  FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000929651
<NAME>                        J.B. WILLIAMS
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                                 JUL-01-2000
<CASH>                                                             6,022
<SECURITIES>                                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                      9,183
<ALLOWANCES>                                                         398
<INVENTORY>                                                       11,786
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                  27,180
<PP&E>                                                             4,980
<DEPRECIATION>                                                     2,865
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                    72,345
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                              9,954
<BONDS>                                                           44,856
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                                            0
<COMMON>                                                          10,804
<OTHER-SE>                                                         6,268
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                      72,345
<SALES>                                                           27,098
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                  27,098
<CGS>                                                              9,543
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                      9,543
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                  16,350
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                 2,615
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                   (1,410)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                        (578)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                               (1,410)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                        0
<CHANGES>                                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                                        (832)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                       (83.20)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                     (83.20)


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6127

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CORY NEWMAN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (6:04-cr-01127-GRA-8)

Submitted: March 28, 2013 Decided: April 2, 2013

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Cory Newman, Appellant Pro Se. Carrie Fisher Sherard, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Cory Newman seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

construing his “Motion for My Relief” as a 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 

(West Supp. 2012) motion and dismissing it as successive, and 

its subsequent order denying reconsideration. The orders are

not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). 

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Newman has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 32.2

                       INKINE PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY, INC.


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



        In  connection  with  the  Quarterly  Report  of  InKine  Pharmaceutical
Company,  Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending  September 30,
2003 as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Robert F. Apple, Chief Operating and Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

        (1) The Report fully complies with the  requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

        (2) The  information  contained in the Report  fairly  presents,  in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and result of  operations of the
Company.



Date: October 31, 2003                     /s/ Robert F. Apple
                                           --------------------
                                           Robert F. Apple
                                           Chief Operating &
                                           Financial Officer
CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO
 18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
 AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 
 In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Knight Transportation, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2009, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Kevin P. Knight, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:
 
 (1)
              The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and
 
 (2)
              The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.
 
 November
      9, 2009
              By:
              /s/
      Kevin P. KnightKevin
      P. KnightChief
      Executive Officer
 
 
 A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Knight Transportation, Inc. and will be retained by Knight
Transportation, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.




Back to Form
10-Q
CARPENTER v. MORRIS

No. COA06-1438.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed June 19, 2007

Certification Date July 9, 2007.

Appeal from Nash (04CVS575).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
GHEE v. PANOS.

No. S07A0153.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

June 25, 2007.

Granted discretionary application-misc. DeKalb Superior Court. Before Judge Castellani.

Dedra Ghee, Lithonia, pro se.

*81Duane Dennis Pritchett, Brenda Ann Raspberry, DeKalb County Law Department, Decatur, for appellee.

BENHAM, Justice.

The judgment of the court below is affirmed without opinion pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 59.

*Affirmed without opinion.*

All the Justices concur.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NOS. WR-76,539-02 & WR-76,539-03

EX PARTE BRANDON JAVON PAYNE, Applicant

ON APPLICATIONS FOR WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NOS. 1236358-A & 1236359-A IN THE 230 DISTRICT COURT TH

FROM HARRIS COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Applicant filed these applications for writs of habeas corpus in the county of conviction, and

the district clerk forwarded them to this Court. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07. According

to the record, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing on August 6, 2019, but the transcript of the

hearing was not forwarded to this Court. Under Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal

Procedure, a reporter is required to transcribe a hearing within fifteen days of its conclusion and then

to immediately forward the transcript to the district clerk in the county of conviction. Id. at § 3(d). 

After receiving the transcript, the district clerk is required to forward it, among other things, to this

Court. Id.; see also TEX. R. APP. P. 73.4(b)(4).

The district clerk shall serve the reporter in Applicant’s case with a copy of this order and
2

then either forward to this Court the transcript of the evidentiary hearing or certify in writing that the

reporter has not transcribed the hearing. The district clerk shall comply with this order within thirty

days from the date of this order.

Filed: November 25, 2019

Do not publish
WOMACK NEWSPAPERS, INC., D/B/A the Outer Banks Sentinel v. THE TOWN OF KITTY HAWK through the Kitty Hawk Town Council; William A. Harris in his capacity as Mayor; Doug Seay, in his capacity as Mayor Pro Tempore; Ervin Bateman, Clifton Perry and Donna Trivette, in their capacities as members of the Town Council; Gary *565Mcgee and Innovative Management Services, LLC, in their capacity as Town Manager; and Norman W. Shearin, Jr., Daniel D. Khoury and Vandeventer Black LLP, in their capacity as Town Attorneys.

No. 82PA07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 8, 2007.

David P. Ferrell, Raleigh, for Harris, et al.

Hugh Stevens, Michael J. Tadych, Raleigh, for Womack Newspapers.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 6th day of February 2007 by Defendants (Harris, et al.) in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Withdrawn by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th day of March 2007."
_________________________________________ 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

January 13, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 129500-1 & (31) Marilyn Kelly (33)(35)(41) Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 129500-1 

 COA: 262586, 263413 

Wayne CC: 00-004468-CK

THE JUDICIAL ATTORNEYS 

ASSOCIATION,

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the motions for leave to file brief amicus curiae are 

GRANTED. The application for leave to appeal the September 15, 2005 orders of the 

Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of granting 

leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for consideration as on 

leave granted. We further ORDER that the stay entered by this Court on September 29, 

2005 remains in effect until completion of this appeal. The motion to vacate or 

reconsider is DENIED as moot. 

We retain jurisdiction. 

CAVANAGH, WEAVER, and KELLY, JJ., would deny leave to appeal. 

d0110 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

January 13, 2006 

Clerk
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 804/2013Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 804/2013 of 22 August 2013 establishing the standard import values for determining            the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 804/2013                     

# of 22 August 2013

# establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural                           markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation)(1),                        

Having regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application                           of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors(2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations,                              the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products                              and periods stipulated in Annex XVI, Part A thereto.

(2)The standard import value is calculated each working day, in accordance with Article 136(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU)                              No 543/2011, taking into account variable daily data. Therefore this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its                              publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

The standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to                     this Regulation.                  

# Article 2U.K.

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*.                  

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 22 August 2013.

*For the Commission, On behalf of the President,*                            

Jerzy Plewa                            

*Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development*                            

## ANNEXU.K.Standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

1

OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.                           

2

OJ L 157, 15.6.2011, p. 1.
IN RE S.T.K.

No. COA06-1361.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed July 17, 2007.

Certification Date August 6, 2007.

Appeal from Davidson (04J265, 05J120).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICERS PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



In connection with the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of American
Access Technologies, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2003, I, Joseph F. McGuire, Chief Financial Officer, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of
my knowledge and belief, that:



| | 1. | Such Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2003, fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2003, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of American Access Technologies, Inc.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: March
16, 2004



|                                                                  
|------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Joseph F. McGuire                                             
|Joseph F. McGuire Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Secretary
#### In the Matter of Michael Modlenaar, Petitioner, v Glenn S. Goord, as Commissioner of Correctional Services, Respondent.

[800 NYS2d 859]

Mercure, J.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner, an inmate at Clinton Correctional Facility in Clinton County, received two misbehavior reports, both dated November 25, 2003, charging him with violating a direct order, causing a disturbance and assault. Following a tier III hearing, petitioner was found guilty of all charges and given 24 months in the special housing unit. Upon administrative review, the determination was modified to 12 months. Petitioner initiated this CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge the determination and we now confirm.

Our review of the record discloses substantial evidence supporting all of the determinations of guilt in the form of detailed misbehavior reports prepared by two correction officers who had witnessed the incidents *(see Matter of Foster v Coughlin,*76 *1191NY2d 964, 966 [1990]; *Matter of Salaam v Goord,*8 AD3d 776, 777 [2004]; *Matter of Marcial v Goord,*2 AD3d 1243, 1244 [2003]; *Matter of McCants v Murphy,*301 AD2d 713, 714 [2003]). Petitioner’s contention that he was innocent of the charges presented an issue of credibility for resolution by the Hearing Officer *(see Matter of Williams v Goord,*308 AD2d 614, 615 [2003]). His complaint that the first report did not adequately describe the disturbance charge is without merit inasmuch as the misbehavior report provided petitioner with sufficient detail, including the date, time, location and a thorough description of the incident, to afford him an opportunity to prepare a defense *(see Matter of Smith v Portuondo,*309 AD2d 1028, 1028 [2003]). Moreover, petitioner’s assertion of hearing officer bias is not supported by the record, which discloses that the hearing was conducted in a fair and impartial manner *(see Matter of Marcial v Goord, supra*at 1244). Lastly, we find no error in the Hearing Officer’s denial of petitioner’s request to call certain witnesses inasmuch as the witnesses had no first-hand knowledge of the events in dispute *(see Matter of Johnson v Goord,*297 AD2d 881, 882 [2002]). Petitioner’s remaining claims, to the extent that they are properly before us, have been reviewed and found to be without merit.

Cardona, P.J., Spain, Carpinello and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D17-1101

_____________________________

JOSHUA T. COPES,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Jack M. Schemer, Judge.

January 10, 2018

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS, OSTERHAUS, and BILBREY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Joshua T. Copes, pro se, Appellant.
2

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.