alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Commission Regulation (EU) No 662/2013Show full title

Commission Regulation (EU) No 662/2013 of 9 July 2013 establishing a prohibition of fishing for Blue ling in EU waters and            international waters of Vb, VI and VII by vessels flying the flag of Spain         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Regulation (EU) No 662/2013                     

# of 9 July 2013

# establishing a prohibition of fishing for Blue ling in EU waters and international waters of Vb, VI and VII by vessels flying                        the flag of Spain                     

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, 9 July 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.
EXHIBIT 32.01



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 periodic report of Glenborough Realty Trust
Incorporated (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Andrew Batinovich, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify
as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:



(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods indicated.



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature
that appears in typed form with the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.



This Certification has not been, and shall not be
deemed, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.



|                       |  |                                      
|---------------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: November 8, 2004 |  | /s/ Andrew Batinovich                
|                       |  | Andrew Batinovich                    
|                       |  | Chief Executive Officer              
|                       |  | Glenborough Realty Trust Incorporated
INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS' REPORT



The Board of Directors
Option One Mortgage Corporation
Santa Ana, California

We have examined management's  assertion about Option One Mortgage Corporation's
(the Company) compliance with the minimum servicing standards  identified in the
Mortgage Bankers Association of America's Uniform Single Attestation Program for
Mortgage  Bankers  (USAP) as of June 17, 1997 and for the period from January 1,
1997  through  June  17,  1997.  Management  is  responsible  for the  Company's
compliance with those minimum  servicing  standards.  Our  responsibility  is to
express an opinion on  management's  assertion  about the  Company's  compliance
based on our examination.

Our  examination  was  made in  accordance  with  standards  established  by the
American  Institute of Certified Public Accountants and,  accordingly,  included
examining,  on a test basis,  evidence about the Company's  compliance  with the
minimum  servicing   standards  and  performing  such  other  procedures  as  we
considered  necessary  in the  circumstances.  We believe  that our  examination
provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.  Our examination does not provide a
legal  determination  of the  company's  compliance  with the minimum  servicing
standards.

In our opinion,  management's  assertion  that Option One  Mortgage  Corporation
complied with the aforementioned minimum servicing standards as of June 17, 1997
and for the period from January 1, 1997 through June 17, 1997 is fairly  stated,
in all material respects.


/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
-------------------------

October 7, 1997
II 

Calendar No. 835 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3186 

To provide funding for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 24 (legislative day, JUNE 23), 2008 

Mr. SANDERS (for himself, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. BROWN, and Mr. CARDIN) 

introduced the following bill; which was read the first time 

JUNE 25, 2008 

Read the second time and placed on the calendar 

A BILL 

To provide funding for the Low-Income Home Energy 

Assistance Program. 

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 ‘‘Warm in Winter and 

5 Cool in Summer Act’’. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
2 

•S 3186 PCS

1 SEC. 2. LOW-INCOME HOME ENERGY ASSISTANCE APPRO2 PRIATIONS. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—In addition to any amounts ap4 propriated under any other provision of Federal law, there 

5 is appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not oth6 erwise appropriated, for fiscal year 2008— 

7 (1) $1,265,000,000 (to remain available until 

8 expended) for making payments under subsections 

9 (a) through (d) of section 2604 of the Low-Income 

10 Home Energy Assistance Act of 1981 (42 U.S.C. 

11 8623); and 

12 (2) $1,265,000,000 (to remain available until 

13 expended) for making payments under section 

14 2604(e) of the Low-Income Home Energy Assist15 ance Act of 1981 (42 U.S.C. 8623(e)), notwith16 standing the designation requirement of section 

17 2602(e) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 8621(e)). 

18 (b) EMERGENCY REQUIREMENT.—The amount pro19 vided under this section is designated as an emergency re20 quirement and necessary to meet emergency needs, pursu21 ant to section 204 of S. Con. Res. 21 (110th Congress), 

22 the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 

23 2008. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
Calendar No. 835 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3186 

A BILL 

To provide funding for the Low-Income Home 

Energy Assistance Program. 

JUNE 25, 2008 

Read the second time and placed on the calendar 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3352 

To temporarily extend the programs under the Higher Education Act of 

1965. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 28, 2008 

Mr. REID (for Mr. KENNEDY) introduced the following bill; which was read 

twice, considered, read the third time, and passed 

A BILL 

To temporarily extend the programs under the Higher 

Education Act of 1965. 

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

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF HIGHER EDUCATION PRO4 GRAMS. 

5 (a) EXTENSION OF PROGRAMS.—Section 2(a) of the 

6 Higher Education Extension Act of 2005 (Public Law 

7 109–81; 20 U.S.C. 1001 note) is amended by striking 

8 ‘‘July 31, 2008’’ and inserting ‘‘August 15, 2008’’. 

9 (b) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this sec10 tion, or in the Higher Education Extension Act of 2005 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
2 

•S 3352 CPS

1 as amended by this Act, shall be construed to limit or oth2 erwise alter the authorizations of appropriations for, or 

3 the durations of, programs contained in the amendments 

4 made by the Higher Education Reconciliation Act of 2005 

5 (Public Law 109–171), by the College Cost Reduction and 

6 Access Act (Public Law 110–84), or by the Ensuring Con7 tinued Access to Student Loans Act of 2008 (Public Law 

8 110–227) to the provisions of the Higher Education Act 

9 of 1965 and the Taxpayer-Teacher Protection Act of 

10 2004. 

11 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

12 subsection (a) shall take effect as if enacted on July 31, 

13 2008. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.2


                            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 EDEN Bioscience Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Bradley
S. Powell, Chief Financial 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:

    (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.


/s/ Bradley S. Powell
----------------------------
Bradley S. Powell
Chief Financial Officer
August 12, 2002
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6696
JOSEPH SLEDGE, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus DEAN WALKER, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-98-243-5-BO) Submitted: September 10, 1998 Decided: September 24, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph Sledge, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate ofappealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Sledge v. Walker , No. CA-98-243-5-BO (E.D.N.C. Apr. 2, 1998). 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
<PAGE>

                                                           EXHIBIT 14(a)(1)(iii)

                                                    ORIX Real Estate
                                                    Capital Markets, LLC
                                                    Paul Smyth
                                                    1717 Main Street, 12th Floor
                                                    Dallas, TX  75201
                                                    214-237-2010

March 12, 2001

                        ANNUAL STATEMENT AS TO COMPLIANCE
                                Special Servicing

Ladies and Gentlemen:

This Officer's Certificate is provided to you by ORIX Real Estate Capital
Markets, LLC ("ORECM") pursuant to the terms outlined in the applicable sections
of certain Agreements as referenced in the attached Exhibit A, relative to the
securitization for which ORECM serves as Special Servicer.

The undersigned officer, on behalf of ORECM, hereby informs you (i) that, a
review of the activities of ORECM as Special Servicer and of its performance
under each respective Agreement under the undersigned's supervision has been
made for the period of time commencing January 1, 2000 through December 31, 2000
or a portion thereof, (ii) that, to the best of such undersigned's knowledge,
based on such review, it has fulfilled all of its obligations under the
Agreement and has maintained an effective internal control system relating to
its servicing of the Loans serviced by it, throughout such period, and (iii)
that, the undersigned has received no notice regarding qualification, nor
challenging the status of the REMICS from the IRS or any other governmental
body.

Also, please find attached, an Annual Independent Public Accountant's Servicing
Report performed by Arthur Andersen LLP relative to the assets being serviced by
ORECM for the period beginning January 1, 2000 through December 31, 2000.

Duplicates of these documents are being simultaneously sent to all parties
listed on Exhibit B for receipt by March 15, 2001.

If you have any questions or comments relative to the attached documents, please
call me at 214-237-2010.

Sincerely,

ORIX Real Estate Capital Markets, LLC
Special Servicer


By:  /s/ Paul Smyth
     Paul Smyth
     Managing Director Servicing

Attachments:   Annual Independent Public Accountant Servicing Report
               Exhibit A
               Exhibit B

                                     -13-
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

 June 30, 2015

a0622

Order 

Clerk

June 30, 2015

150317

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 150317

COA: 313539

Macomb CC: 2011-003034-FH

CHARLES JOSEPH PRIKOPA II,

Defendant-Appellant.

_____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 22, 2014 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
<PAGE>





                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

                    YOUNG BROADCASTING INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                      RE COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS

                                                          THREE MONTHS ENDED
                                                          ------------------
                                                       MARCH 31,      March 31,
                                                         2000           2001
                                                     ---------------------------
SHARES OF COMMON STOCK OUTSTANDING
    FOR THE ENTIRE PERIOD-BASIC .................     13,493,723     16,546,190

ISSUANCE OF 6,200 AND 27,000 SHARES OF COMMON
      STOCK UPON EXERCISE OF OPTIONS ............         14,367          4,292

ISSUANCE OF 4,413 AND 9,817 SHARES OF COMMON
      STOCK TO THE COMPANY'S DEFINED CONTRIBUTION
      PLAN.......................................          3,928          7,308
                                                    ---------------------------
WEIGHTED AVERAGE SHARES OF COMMON
       STOCK OUTSTANDING-BASIC ..................     13,501,943     16,567,865

DILUTED EFFECT OF 1,858,353 OPTIONS IN 2000
      EXPECTED TO BE EXERCISED UNDER THE
      TREASURY STOCK METHOD USING THE WEIGHED
      AVERAGE MARKET PRICE OF THE COMPANY'S
      SHARES OF COMMON STOCK ....................        379,190           --
                                                    ---------------------------

TOTAL DILUTED WEIGHTED AVERAGE SHARES OF
     COMMON STOCK FOR THE PERIOD ................     13,881,133     16,567,865
                                                    ===========================

INCOME (LOSS) BEFORE EXTRAORDINARY ITEM .........   $  9,885,127   $(19,785,152)
                                                    ===========================

NET INCOME (LOSS) ...............................   $  9,885,127   $(32,221,702)
                                                    ===========================

NET INCOME (LOSS) PER COMMON SHARE:

     BASIC

        INCOME (LOSS) PER COMMON SHARE BEFORE
           EXTRAORDINARY ITEM....................      $0.73          $(1.19)
                                                    ============================
       NET INCOME (LOSS)                               $0.73          $(1.94)
                                                    ============================
     DILUTED

        INCOME (LOSS) PER COMMON SHARE BEFORE
           EXTRAORDINARY ITEM....................      $0.71          $(1.19)
                                                    ============================
        NET INCOME (LOSS)........................      $0.71          $(1.94)
                                                    ============================
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 2, 2021

No. 04

- 21

- 00352

- CV

In re Brown Sims, P.C. and Nelson D. Skyler

Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

ORDER

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez

, Chief Justice

Luz Elena D. Ch apa , Justice Liza A. Rodriguez , Justice

On August 23, 2021 , relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus and an emergency

m otion to stay certain dead lines pending final resolution of the petition for writ of mandamus. This court believes a serious question concerning the mandamus relief sought requires f urther

consideration. See T EX

. R. A PP . P. 52.8(b). The respondent and t he r eal party i n interest may file a response to the petition in this court no later than September 17, 2021 . Any such response must conform to Texas Rule of Appell ate Procedure 52.4.

Relator’s request for temporary relief is GRANTED. The September 21 , 2021 expert designation deadline, October 27, 2021 expert challenge hea r ing deadline, and November 1, 2021 discovery deadline in the trial court’s March 3, 2021 Third Amended Docket Control

O rder, as amended by the parties by agreement pu rsua nt to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 11, are STAYED pending final resolution of the petition for writ of mandamus.

It is so ORDERED on September 2, 2021

. PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO: _____________________________

Michae l A. C ruz
, Clerk of Court

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. DC

- 18

- 55

, styled L.W. Matteson, Inc., et al. v. Browns Sims, et

al. , pending in the 381st Judi cial District Court

, Starr County, Texas, the Honorable Jose Luis Garza presiding.IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto se t my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 2nd day of September, 2021

.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court
STATE v. JONES.

No. COA07-81.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed August 21, 2007.

Certification Date September 10, 2007.

Appeal from Lenoir (04CRS51802).

Case Reported Without Published Opinion. Remanded for resentencing.
STATE of North Carolina v. Charles Eugene WATTS.

No. 449P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 19, 2006.

Anne M. Middleton, Assistant Attorney General, Kristy M. Newton, District Attorney, for State.

Bruce T. Cunningham, Jr., Southern Pines, for Watts.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the cross petition filed on the 29th day of August 2005 by Defendant 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:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 19th day of December 2006."
ROYAL v. PATE

No. COA06-571

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Filed May 1, 2007

Certification Date May 21, 2007

Appeal from Lenoir (05CVS502).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
<PAGE>   1


                                                                      EXHIBIT 99

               INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT TO THE DIRECTORS AND
SHAREHOLDER OF LASON LIMITED

     We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheet of Lason
Limited and subsidiaries as of June 30 1999 and the Balance sheet and the
related consolidated profit and loss account as of December 31 1999, all
expressed in pounds sterling.  The financial statements are the responsibility
of the management of Lason Limited.  Our responsibility is to express an opinion
on these financial statements based on our audits.

     We conducted our audits in accordance with UK auditing standards which
are similar to those generally accepted in the United States of America.  Those
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable
assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material
misstatement.  An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting
the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements.  An audit also includes
assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by
management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the financial
statements. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our
opinion.

     In our opinion, the Balance sheet present fairly, in all material
respects, the financial position of Lason Limited and subsidiaries as of June
30 1999, and the balance sheet and profit and loss account for the six months
to December 31 1999 and are in conformity with accounting principles generally
accepted in the United States of America.

DELOITTE & TOUCHE
Chartered Accountants
London, England
30 March 2000
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

LAWRENCE SMITH

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 19

- 742

[ May 9, 2019 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.800 motion from the Circuit Court for

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Barbara R. Duffy

, Judge; L.T. Case No. 01

- 12538 CF10A

.

Lawrence Smith, Monticello, pro se

.

No appearance required for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

G ERBER

, C.J., G ROSS and L EVINE

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.