alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Commission Regulation (EU) No 843/2013Show full title

Commission Regulation (EU) No 843/2013 of 30 August 2013 establishing a prohibition of fishing for redfish in Greenland waters            of NAFO 1F and Greenland waters of V and XIV by vessels flying the flag of Latvia         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Regulation (EU) No 843/2013                     

# of 30 August 2013

# establishing a prohibition of fishing for redfish in Greenland waters of NAFO 1F and Greenland waters of V and XIV by vessels                        flying the flag of Latvia                     

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring                           compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy(1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Council Regulation (EU) No 40/2013 of 21 January 2013 fixing for 2013 the fishing opportunities available in EU waters and,                              to EU vessels, in certain non-EU waters for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks which are subject to international                              negotiations or agreements(2), lays down quotas for 2013.

(2)According to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation                              by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for                              2013.

(3)It is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

## Article 1U.K.Quota exhaustion

The fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein                     for 2013 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.                  

## Article 2U.K.Prohibitions

Fishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in                     the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited                     to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.                  

## Article 3U.K.Entry into force

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that 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, 30 August 2013.

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

Lowri Evans                            

*Director-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries*                            

## ANNEXU.K.

1

OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.                           

2

OJ L 23, 25.1.2013, p. 54.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6376

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

RANDY D. GLENN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Margaret B. Seymour, District

Judge. (7:02-cr-01135-MBS-1; 7:05-cv-03278-MBS)

Submitted: July 22, 2008 Decided: July 25, 2008

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Randy D. Glenn, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Jean Howard, Assistant

United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Randy D. Glenn seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is

not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Glenn 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 contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
KOZOMAN v. SMITH, et al.

No. 330P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 29, 2006.

Mark A. Davis, Raleigh, for David Smith, et al.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 20th day of June 2006 by Plaintiff for "Notice of Appeal":

"Motion Dismissed ex mero motu by order of the Court in conference this the 29th day of June 2006."
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS, CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS, CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENTS OF SHAREHOLDER'S EQUITY, CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF RETAINED EARNINGS
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1996
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                         36,229
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                36,229
<CGS>                                           25,046
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   25,046
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 6,907
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 736
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,457
<INCOME-TAX>                                       280
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,177
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,177
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .27
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

CERTIFICATION

 

I, Deborah S. Maddocks,certify that:

 

1.                     I havereviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of PAULA Financial;

 

2.                     Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.                     Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.                     Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15e and 15d-15e) for the registrant and we have:

 

a)                    Designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision,  to ensure that material information relating to the registrant,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;

 

b)                   Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

 

c)                    Disclosed inthis report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.                     Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

a)                    Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record,  process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

b)                   Any fraud,whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

 
| Date:  November 13, 2003 | By:                            |  /s/ Deborah S.  Maddocks |   |
|------------------------------------|--------------------------------|--------------------------------|--------|
|                               | Vice President –  Finance |

 

1

----
EXHIBIT 11

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                   STIRLING COOKE BROWN HOLDINGS LIMITED
      STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME (LOSS) PER ORDINARY SHARE
             (Expressed in thousands of United States Dollars,
                     except share and per share data)





                                                                 1997          1998         1999
                                                             -------------   ----------    ---------
<S>                                                          <C>             <C>            <C>
Net Income (Loss)......................................      $     12,993    $   16,018     ($ 6,717)
                                                             =============   ==========    =========
BASIC
Number of Shares:
Weighted average number of ordinary shares
  outstanding..........................................         8,382,434     9,863,372    9,863,372
Weighted average treasury shares held..................          (143,396)      (49,271)    (383,016)
Shares issued in June 1997.............................           144,444            --           --
                                                             -------------   ----------    ---------
                                                                8,383,482     9,814,101    9,480,356
                                                             =============   ==========    =========
Net income (loss) per share............................      $       1.55    $     1.63      ($ 0.71)
                                                             =============   ==========    =========

DILUTED
Number of shares:
Weighted average number of ordinary shares
  outstanding..........................................         8,237,990     9,863,372    9,863,372
Weighted average treasury shares held..................          (143,396)      (49,271)    (383,016)
Shares issued in June 1997.............................           288,888            --           --
Incremental shares from assumed exercise of options....           131,991        26,058           --
                                                             -------------   ----------    ---------
                                                                8,515,473     9,840,159    9,480,356
                                                             =============   ==========    =========
Net income (loss) per share assuming dilution..........      $       1.53    $     1.63      ($ 0.71)
                                                             =============   ==========    =========
</TABLE>
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 22

- 10037 Summary Calendar

**United States of America,**
Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus

**Nohe Dominguez**

**- Morales,** 
Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:21

- CR

- 220

- 1

Before **Wiener, Elrod,**  and **Engelhardt,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** *

Nohe Dominguez

- Morales appeals his conviction and sentence for illegal reentry after deportation under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(1). He argues that treating a prior felony conviction that increases the statutory

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circu it 

### FILED October 4, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 22-10037 Document: 00516495829 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/04/2022No. 22

- 10037

2 maximum under § 1326(b) as a sentencing factor , rather than a separate element of the offense, violates the Constitution. Dominguez

- Morales correctly concedes that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez

- Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but he wishes to preserve it for further review. See United States v. Pervis , 937 F.3d 546, 553

- 54 (5th Cir. 2019). The Government has moved without opposition for summary affirmance or, alternatively, for an extension of time to file its brief

. Because the Government’s position “is clearly right as a matter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to the outcome of the case,” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis , 406 F.2d 1 158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969), summary affirmance is proper. Accordingly, the motion for summary affirmance is **GRANTED** , and the judgment of the district court is
**AFFIRMED** . The Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is **DENIED**

. Case: 22-10037 Document: 00516495829 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/04/2022
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 12

- 00253

- CV

Patriot Residential Management

Services, LLC

v.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Carlos Lazo

d/b/a Maxwell Finish Co. §

§

§

§ From County Court at Law No. 2

o f Tarrant County (2011

- 001946

- 2

- C )

May 30, 2013

Opinion by Chief Justice Livingston



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

the appeal should be dismissed. It is ordere d that the appeal is dismissed for

want of jurisdiction.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By

_________________________________ C hief Justice Terrie Livingston
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JANUARY 12, 2021

NO. 03

- 20

- 00442

- CR

David Hernandez Guerrero, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 207TH DISTRICT COURT OF COMAL COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE BY RNE, JUSTICES BAKER AND SMITH

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION

-- OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE BYRNE

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction r en d ered by the tr i a l court. Having reviewed

t he record, it appears that the Court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal . Therefore, the Court

dismisses the appeal for want of jurisdiction

. Because appellant is indigent and u nable to pay

costs, no adjudica t i on of costs is made.
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3154 

To require the Federal Communications Commission to prescribe a standard 

to preclude commercials from being broadcast at louder volumes than 

the program material they accompany. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 18, 2008 

Mr. SCHUMER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

A BILL 

To require the Federal Communications Commission to prescribe a standard to preclude commercials from being 

broadcast at louder volumes than the program material 

they accompany. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Commercial Advertise5 ment Loudness Mitigation Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. RULEMAKING ON LOUD COMMERCIALS REQUIRED. 

7 (a) REGULATION REQUIRED.—Within one year after 

8 the date of enactment of this Act, the Federal CommuVerDate Aug 31 2005 06:18 Jun 19, 2008 Jkt 069200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S3154.IS S3154

erowe on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•S 3154 IS

1 nications Commission shall prescribe pursuant to the 

2 Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 151 et seq.) a 

3 regulation that provides, in connection with any video pro4 gramming that is broadcast or that is distributed by any 

5 multichannel video programming distributor, that— 

6 (1) advertisements accompanying such video 

7 programming shall not be excessively noisy or stri8 dent; 

9 (2) such advertisements shall not be presented 

10 at modulation levels substantially higher than the 

11 program material that such advertisements accom12 pany; and 

13 (3) the average maximum loudness of such ad14 vertisements shall not be substantially higher than 

15 the average maximum loudness of the program ma16 terial that such advertisements accompany. 

17 (b) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this section, the 

18 terms ‘‘video programming’’ and ‘‘multichannel video pro19 gramming distributor’’ have the meanings given such 

20 terms in section 602 of Communications Act of 1934 (47 

21 U.S.C. 522). 

Æ 


erowe on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3309 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3309

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 2523 7th Avenue East in North Saint Paul, Minnesota, as the Mayor 
            William ``Bill'' Sandberg Post Office Building.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. MAYOR WILLIAM ``BILL'' SANDBERG POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 2523 7th Avenue East in North Saint Paul, Minnesota, shall 
be known and designated as the ``Mayor William `Bill' Sandberg Post 
Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Mayor 
William `Bill' Sandberg Post Office Building''.

            Passed the Senate September 26 (legislative day, September 
      17), 2008.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
110th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 3309

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 2523 7th Avenue East in North Saint Paul, Minnesota, as the Mayor 
            William ``Bill'' Sandberg Post Office Building.
```
**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

**18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

|   | (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. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  May              10, 2007 | By:    |  /s/Kevin              P. Knight                                |
|---------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                            |   | Kevin                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.*
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-7393

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

REGINA KAYE GOODIN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Graham C. Mullen, District

Judge. (CR-92-10-MU, CA-95-59-5-MU)

Submitted: May 1, 1997 Decided: May 7, 1997

Before WIDENER and MURNAGHAN, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam.

Regina Kaye Goodin, Appellant Pro Se. Kenneth Davis Bell, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997).

We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district

court. United States v. Goodin, Nos. CR-92-10-MU, CA-95-59-5-MU

(W.D.N.C. Aug. 15, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process. We further deny Goodin's motions for oral argument and for

appointment of counsel.

DISMISSED