alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
STATE v. Kenneth BARNARD.

No. 347A07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 23, 2007.

Anne Bleyman, for Barnard.

Daniel Johnson, Special Deputy Attorney General, Ronald L. Moore, District Attorney, for State of NC.

Kimberly N. Overton, for NC Conference of DA.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 18th day of October 2007 by NC Association of Police Attorneys for leave to file Amicus Curiae Brief:

"Motion Allowed. Unless already submitted, the Amicus Brief shall be submitted to the court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 28(i). By order of the Court in conference this the 23rd day of October 2007."
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
       
<S>                           <C>

<PERIOD-TYPE>                 3-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             Dec-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                Apr-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                  Jun-30-1998
<CASH>                        10
<SECURITIES>                  4,438,761
<RECEIVABLES>                 0
<ALLOWANCES>                  0
<INVENTORY>                   0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              0 <F1>
<PP&E>                        0
<DEPRECIATION>                0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                4,438,882
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         0 <F1>
<BONDS>                       4,204,634
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>         0
<PREFERRED>                   0
<COMMON>                      10
<OTHER-SE>                    200,476
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  4,438,882
<SALES>                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              63,048
<CGS>                         0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>              1,644
<LOSS-PROVISION>              1,686
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>            61,795
<INCOME-PRETAX>               (2,077)
<INCOME-TAX>                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>           (2,077)
<DISCONTINUED>                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>               0
<CHANGES>                     0
<NET-INCOME>                  (2,077)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                 0
<EPS-DILUTED>                 0
<FN>
The Company's balanace sheet is unclassified.
</FN>

        


</TABLE>
STATE of North Carolina v. Joseph Brian TARLETON.

No. 212P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 27, 2007.

Joseph Brian Tarleton, pro se.

*895Jill A. Bryan, Assistant Attorney General, John Snyder, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 1st day of May 2007 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 27th day of June 2007."
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3403 

To amend title 49, United States Code, to require determination of the 

maximum feasible fuel economy level achievable for cars and light trucks 

for a year based on a projected fuel gasoline price that is not less 

than the applicable high gasoline price projection issued by the Energy 

Information Administration. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 31, 2008 

Ms. CANTWELL introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

A BILL 

To amend title 49, United States Code, to require determination of the maximum feasible fuel economy level achievable for cars and light trucks for a year based on a 

projected fuel gasoline price that is not less than the 

applicable high gasoline price projection issued by the 

Energy Information Administration. 

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 ‘‘Accuracy in Fuel 

5 Economy Standards Act’’. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•S 3403 IS

1 SEC. 2. DETERMINATION OF MAXIMUM FEASIBLE FUEL 

2 ECONOMY STANDARDS FOR PASSENGER 

3 AUTOMOBILES AND NON-PASSENGER AUTO4 MOBILES BASED ON THE MOST RECENT HIGH 

5 GASOLINE PRICE PROJECTION. 

6 Section 32902 of title 49, United States Code, is 

7 amended by adding at the end the following: 

8 ‘‘(l) CALCULATION OF MAXIMUM FEASIBLE FUEL

9 ECONOMY STANDARDS.— 

10 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall deter11 mine the maximum feasible fuel economy level 

12 achievable for passenger automobiles and non-pas13 senger automobiles for each model year for purposes 

14 of this section based on a projected gasoline price 

15 that is not less than the applicable high gasoline 

16 price projection issued by the Energy Information 

17 Administration. 

18 ‘‘(2) APPLICABLE HIGH GASOLINE PRICE PRO19 JECTION DEFINED.—In this subsection the term ‘ap20 plicable high gasoline price projection’ means the 

21 greatest of a range of estimated gasoline prices that 

22 the Energy Information Administration issues as 

23 part of its annual energy outlook, short-term energy 

24 outlook, or similar analyses, for the year or years 

25 corresponding to the model year or model years for 

26 which the Secretary is prescribing an average fuel 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
3 

•S 3403 IS

1 economy standard under this section, and for the 

2 range of years considered by the Secretary in deter3 mining the costs and benefits associated with such 

4 standard.’’. 

Æ 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Roderick Johnson, Appellant.

[804 NYS2d 162]

Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Frank P. Geraci, Jr., J.), rendered March 25, 2002. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of murder in the second degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict, of murder in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.25 [1]). We reject defendant’s contention that reversal is required based on County Court’s refusal to give a circumstantial evidence charge. Where, as here, the proof at trial consists of both “circumstantial and direct evidence, the court need not so charge the jury” *(People v Daddona,*81 NY2d 990, 992 [1993]; *see also People v Holmes,*204 AD2d 243, 244-245 [1994], *lv denied*84 NY2d 868 [1994]). Contrary to the further contention of defendant, he was afforded effective assistance of counsel *(see generally People v Baldi,*54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]). Defendant’s contention that the court erred in failing to require the People to reveal the identity of a confidential informant who disposed of what appeared to have been the murder weapon also is lacking in merit. “[T]he truly crucial factor in . . . [determining whether an informer’s identity should be disclosed] is the relevance of the informer’s testimony to the guilt or innocence of the accused” *(People v Goggins,*34 NY2d 163, 170 [1974], *cert denied*419 US 1012 [1974]). Here, the confidential informant “played a marginal part” in the crime by disposing of a weapon, and that participation does not impact upon “the guilt or innocence of the accused” *(id.).*Thus, the court did not err in refusing to disclose the identity of the confidential informant.

Contrary to the further contention of defendant, his arrest *1396was based on probable cause. Indeed, the record establishes that, when the police discovered defendant hiding behind a piece of furniture, defendant admitted that he was the subject of an outstanding warrant *(see People v Gary,*19 AD3d 1118 [2005]). Finally, the direct and circumstantial evidence is legally sufficient to support the conviction *(see generally People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Gorski, Smith and Lawton, JJ.
# Commission Regulation (EU) No 838/2013Show full title

Commission Regulation (EU) No 838/2013 of 30 August 2013 establishing a prohibition of fishing for saithe in Norwegian waters            of I and II by vessels flying the flag of Portugal         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Regulation (EU) No 838/2013                     

# of 30 August 2013

# establishing a prohibition of fishing for saithe in Norwegian waters of I and II by vessels flying the flag of Portugal

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, 25.01.2013, p. 54.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l unani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T KA R I NE ME L KO NY AN , P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 08- 74733 A ge nc yN o. A 075- 751- 750 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

an O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d O c t obe r19, 2010 ** B e f o r e : O ’S C A N N L A I N , T A L L M A N , an dB E A , C ir c u it Ju d g e s . K ar i ne M e l kony an, ana t i ve of the f orm e rS ovi e tU ni on and ac i t i z e n of U zbeki st an, pet i t i on s f

or re vi ew of the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ (“ B IA ”) o r d e rd e n y in g h e rm o tio n to r e o p e n b a s e do n in e f f e c tiv e a s s is tan c e o f

c o u n s e l. W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r8 U . S . C . § 1252. W e r e vi e w f orabus e of

di s c r e t i on the 

# FI LED OC T 26 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS08- 74733 2 d e n ia l o f am o tio n to r e o p e n , I

tu rr i b a rr i a v . I

NS , 32 1 F . 3d 88 9, 89 4 (9th C i r. 2 0 0 3 ) , an dw e d e n yth e p e titio n f o rr e v ie w . T h e B I A d idn o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n in d e n y in g M e lk o n y an ’s m o tio n to re op en as un t i m el y bec ause she f i l ed the m ot i on t o reopen al m ostfi ve ye ar s a ft er th e B I A ’s A p r il 8 , 2 0 0 3 , o r d e r , se e 8 C . F . R . § 1 00 3. 2(c) (2), and M el ko nyan fa i l ed to e s tab lis h th a t s h e a c te dw ith th e du e d ilig e n c e r e q u ir e df o re q u itab le to llin g , se e I tu rr ib a rr ia , 32 1 F . 3d at89 7 (st at i ng thatequi t abl e t ol l i ng i s avai l abl e w here

“ pet i t i on eri s pre vent ed fr om fi l i ng because of dec ept i on , fr aud, or error, as l on g as th e p e titio n e ra c ts w ith du e d ilig e n c e ” ) ; cf . G ha hrem an iv. G on zales , 498 F . 3d 993, 10 00 (9th C i r. 20 07 ). P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.
### RAUL DAVID JACKSON #1367898 WilliamRBoyd

### JrUnit 200Spur 113 Teague, Tx. 75860

Court of Criminal Appeals Able Acosta, Clerk P.O. Box 12308 Austin, Tx. 78711

RE: EX PARTE RAUL DAVID JACKSON May 16, 2015

WRIT NO. WR-73,697-06, WR-73,697-07, WR-73,697-08, WR-73,697-09 TRIAL NO. W06-00445-K, W06-00448-K, W06-00450-K, W06-00453-K

Dear Mr Acosta, Enclosed please find a true copy of my correspondence that I have sent this date by certifiedmail RRR to Felicia Pitre, District Clerk, Dallas County, Texas. Please file this correspondence for record in the above-cause so that the Court is aware that I am not able to file objections to the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the trial court because the trial court clerkhas failed or refused to forward them to me in accordance with Rules of Appellate Procedure**Rul.~;,.** 73.4 (b)(2). Thank you. ::-:.; ·.·.·,

c. File

# .~~~~ij~~ro**~~**

# -**@OO~T**

### OF-CRIMINAl**A~t.S** 

# MAY2·0

# 1015

### RAUL DAVID JACKSON#1367898 WilliamRBoydJrUnit' 

### 200Spur 113 

### Teague,**Tx~** 

### 75860

Felicia Pitre Dist.Clerk, Dallas Co. 133 N. Riverfront Blvd. LB 12 Dallas, Tx. 75207-4300

RE: EX PARTE RAUL-DAVID JACKSON May 16, 2015

WRIT NO. WR-73,697-06,**WR-73,697~07,** WR-73,697-08, WR-73,697-09 TRIAL NO. W06-00445-K, W06-00448-K,**W06~00450-K,** W06-00453-K

Dear Ms Pitre, On 5/13/15, I received 4 white-card-notices from.the Court of Criminal Appeals indicating that they have received and filed my habeas applications forwarded from your office. Please be advised that I am proceeding pro se and I have not receiveda copy of the findings of fact and conclusions of law as required.by Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 73.4 (b)(2). In accordancewith mandamus requirements, I am hereby demanding that you perform a mandatory duty and mail to me forthwith a true and correct copy of the findings of fact and conclusions of law that were forwarded to the Court of Criminal Appeals in this cause. I am further requesting a true copy of the Clerk's Summary Sheet that was forwarded with said applications. Please file-mark and return to me the enclosed copy of this correspondence. Thank you.



### c. Able Acosta File



### ATRUE COPY
# L_2013062EN.01003601.xml

| 6.3.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 62/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.3.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 62/36

---

Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EU) No 51/2013 of 16 January 2013 amending Regulation (EC) No 152/2009 as regards the methods of analysis for the determination of constituents of animal origin for the official control of feed

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 20 of 23 January 2013
  )

On page 39, Annex, ‘Annex VI to Regulation (EC) No 152/2009’, point 2.1.4.2., Diagram 1 is replaced as follows:

‘
  Diagram 1

Observation protocol for the detection of animal particles in compound feed and feed material other than fishmeal

YES

Grinding process of sample insures 95 % of particles ≤ 0.50 mm

NO

Sieving on 0.25 mm mesh

3 slides from sediment + 1 slide from flotate or raw material

3 slides from < 0.25 mm sediment + 1 slide < 0.25 mm flotate or raw material

> 5 animal particles of same nature detected?

YES

sample declared according to point 2.1.5.3 for FISH

repetition of analysis according to point 2.1.4.3

YES

> 5 animal particles of same nature detected?

NO

> 5

Number of fish particles?

≤ 5

NO

1 slide from sediment

FISH

1 slide from > 0.25 mm sediment

> 5 animal particles of same nature detected?

YES

nature of animal particles?

YES

> 5 animal particles of same nature detected?

NO

TERRESTRIAL

NO

1 slide from flotate or raw material

> 5

Number of terrestrial particles?

≤ 5

1 slide from > 0.25 mm flotate or raw material

animal particles detected?

YES

sample declared according to point 2.1.5.3 for TERRESTRIAL ANIMAL

repetition of analysis according to point 2.1.4.3

YES

animal particles detected?

NO

sample declared according to point 2.1.5.1

NO

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996             SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           4,781                   3,363
<SECURITIES>                                    11,418                   5,127
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,164                   5,654
<ALLOWANCES>                                       265                     298
<INVENTORY>                                        809                   1,141
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                22,241                  15,279
<PP&E>                                           1,236                   1,650
<DEPRECIATION>                                     423                     633
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  24,009                  17,424
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,611                   2,201
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                             7                       8
<OTHER-SE>                                      21,391                  15,215
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    24,009                  17,424
<SALES>                                         13,605                   5,638
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                13,605                   5,638
<CGS>                                           12,002                   6,200
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   12,002                   6,200
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 6,916                   6,231
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   190                     175
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 500                     550
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (4,813)                 (6,243)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       (63)                    (50)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (4,876)                 (6,293)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (4,876)                 (6,293)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.73)                  (0.84)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.73)                  (0.84)<FN>
        
<FN> Per share information in 1996 has been retroactively adjusted to reflect
a one for three reverse stock split that was approved in May, 1996.



</TABLE>
IN RE Z.R.G.

No. COA07-121.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed June 19, 2007

Certification Date July 9, 2007.

Appeal from Wake (06J563).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
Exhibit 31.1

Section 302 Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

I, James Bell, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of ComLink
Communications Company.

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

    a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
    information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
    subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
    particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being
    prepared;

    b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
    procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
    quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

    c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
    effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
    evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):


    a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
    controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
    process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
    registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

    b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
    employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls.


<PAGE>


6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal
controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective
actions with regard to significant efficiencies and material weaknesses.


Date: November 11, 2005


/s/ James Bell
---------------------------
James Bell
Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer