alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# L_2015090DE.01002201.xml

| 2.4.2015 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 90/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.4.2015

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 90/22

---

Berichtigung der Durchführungsverordnung (EU) Nr. 390/2013 der Kommission vom 3. Mai 2013 zur Festlegung eines Leistungssystems für Flugsicherungsdienste und Netzfunktionen

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 128 vom 9. Mai 2013
  )

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 128 vom 9. Mai 2013

Seite 4, Artikel 3 Absatz 3 Buchstabe i:

anstatt:

„Überwachung, Vergleich und Überprüfung ...“

muss es heißen:

„Überwachung, Benchmarking und Überprüfung ...“;

Seite 5, Artikel 5 Absatz 2 Buchstabe c Ziffer iii:

anstatt:

„... Verordnung (EG) Nr. 594/2004 ...“

muss es heißen:

„... Verordnung (EG) Nr. 549/2004 ...“;

Seite 5, Artikel 5 Absatz 2 Buchstabe d:

anstatt:

„sie sind dafür verantwortlich, dass die auf lokaler Ebene, d. h. auf Ebene funktionalen Luftraumblöcke, auf nationaler Ebene, auf der Ebene der Gebührenzone und auf Flughafenebene, festgelegten Leistungsziele erreicht werden;“

muss es heißen:

„sie sind verantwortlich für die Festlegung und Einhaltung der Leistungsziele auf lokaler Ebene, d. h. auf Ebene der funktionalen Luftraumblöcke, auf nationaler Ebene, auf Ebene der Gebührenzonen und auf Flughafenebene;“

;

Seite 5, Artikel 5 Absatz 2 Buchstabe e:

anstatt:

„... in denen daher keine Streckenkosteneffizienzziele für mehr als eine Gebührenzone innerhalb des Luftraumblocks festgelegt wurden, ...“

muss es heißen:

„... in denen daher Streckenkosteneffizienzziele für mehr als eine Gebührenzone innerhalb des Luftraumblocks festgelegt wurden, ...“;

Seite 7, Artikel 9 Absatz 7:

anstatt:

„... wird das Leistungsüberprüfungsgremium in Konsultation mit der EASA ...“

muss es heißen:

„... wird die EASA in Konsultation mit dem Leistungsüberprüfungsgremium ...“;

Seite 14, Anhang I Abschnitt 1 Nummer 3.1:

anstatt:

„Durchschnittliche ATFM-Verspätung (ATFM — Air Traffic Flow Management, Verkehrsflussregelung) im Streckenflug in Minuten, die den Flugsicherungsdiensten zuzuordnen ist, definiert wie folgt:“

muss es heißen:

„Durchschnittliche ATFM-Verspätung (ATFM — Air Traffic Flow Management, Verkehrsflussregelung) im Streckenflug in Minuten je Flug, die den Flugsicherungsdiensten zuzuordnen ist, definiert wie folgt:“

;

Seite 16, Anhang I Abschnitt 2 Nummer 2.2 Buchstabe b Ziffer i:

anstatt:

„... und der verzögerungsfreien Rollzeit bei ASMA-Transitzeiten bei geringem Verkehr;“

muss es heißen:

„... und der unverzögerten Zeit basierend auf der ASMA-Transitzeit bei geringem Verkehrsaufkommen;“.

---
AUSTIN v. CONTINENTAL GENERAL TIRE.

No. 73P01-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 25, 2007.

Matthew D. Glidewell, Charlotte, for Continental General Tire.

Mona Lisa Wallace, Salisbury, Cathy Williams, Ed Pauley, for Austin.

Prior report: 141 N.C.App. 397, 540 S.E.2d 824.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 25th day of September 2007 by Defendant for Temporary Stay:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference this the 25th day of September 2007."

HUDSON and EDMUNDS, JJ., recused.
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 712/2013Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 712/2013 of 24 July 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 712/2013                     

# of 24 July 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, 24 July 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.
<PAGE>   1
                                                          Exhibit 21.1

                            The Kroll-O'Gara Company
                                  Subsidiaries

O'Gara-Hess & Eisenhardt Armoring Company (Delaware) (100%)
     The O'Gara Company de Mexico, S.A. de
          C.V. (Mexico) (100%)
     O'Gara-Hess & Eisenhardt de Brasil LTDA (Brazil)(100%)
     O'Gara Security International, Inc. (Delaware)(100%)
          O'Gara Laura Automotive Group (Russia) (51%)
          O'Gara-Hess & Eisenhardt (CIS) (Russia)(100%)
     O'Gara France S.A. (France) (100%)
          O'Gara-Hess & Eisenhardt France S.A. (France) (100% by O'Gara France
          S.A.)
               Hellio Polds Lourds-Carrosserie, Tolerie, Peinture
               S.A. (France) (100%)
               SARL Normandie Carrosserie (France) (83.7%)
               Societte De Blindage and de Secirite
               (France) (100%)
     O'Gara-Hess & Eisenhardt Philippines, Inc. (Philippines) (100%)
     O'Gara Philippines, Inc. (Philippines) (100%)
O'Gara Satellite Networks Limited (Ireland) (100%)
O'Gara Satellite Networks, Inc. (Delaware) (100%)
Next Destination Limited (U.K.) (100%)
O'Gara Security Associates, Inc. (Ohio) (100%)
     International Training, Incorporated (Virginia) (100%)
     Kroll Information Services, Inc. (Delaware)(100%)
The O'Gara Company FSC, Inc. (Barbados)(100%)

Kroll Holdings, Inc. ("KHI") (Delaware) (100%)
     Kroll Associates, Inc. (Delaware) (100%)
          Kroll Associates (Asia) Limited (Hong Kong) (50%; 50% by KHI)
     Kroll Associates U.K. Limited (England)(100%)
     Kroll International, Inc. (Delaware)(100%)
     Kroll Associates International Holdings, Inc. (100%)
     Holder Associates, S.A. (Argentina) (100%)
Kroll Lindquist Avey Company (Nova Scotia)
    (100% owned by L.A.M.B. Acquisition, Inc. and L.A.M.B. Acquisition II,
          Inc., which are 100% owned by The Kroll-O'Gara Company)
InPhoto Surveillance, Inc. (Illinois) (100%)

Laboratory Specialists of America, Inc. (Oklahoma) (100%)
Kroll Laboratory Specialists, Inc. (Louisiana) (100%)

Kroll Buchler Phillips Ltd. (U.K.) (100%)
Kroll Background America, Inc. (Tennessee) (100%)

All other subsidiaries together do not meet the definition of a
Significant Subsidiary.
EXHIBIT 32.1



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 Annual Report of Chinawe.com Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2016 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Man Keung Alan Wai, Chief Executive Officer
of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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.



|/s/ Man Keung Alan Wai  | 
|----------------------- | 
|Chief Executive Officer | 
|March 31, 2017          | 



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 within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Chinawe.com Inc. and
will be retained by Chinawe.com Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
STATE of North Carolina v. Steve MORRISON.

No. 289P06-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 23, 2007.

Steve Morrison, pro se.

Amy C. Kunstling, Assistant Attorney General, Peter S. Gilchrist, III, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 12th day of June 2007 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, 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 23rd day of August 2007."
The Honorable David S. Doty, United States District Judge for the District of 1

Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Arthur J.

Boylan, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 97-4128

___________

Gene Lalonde, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner *

of Social Security, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: June 2, 1998

 Filed: July 6, 1998

___________

Before FAGG, BEAM, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Gene Lalonde appeals the dismissal of his action seeking constructive reopening

of a previously denied claim for child disability benefits. Having carefully reviewed the

record and the parties& briefs, we affirm the judgment of the district court for the

1

reasons set forth in the magistrate judge&s well-reasoned report. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

In addition, Lalonde&s assertion that his prior attorneys were negligent is not grounds
-2-

for reversal in this civil action. See Glick v. Henderson, 855 F.2d 536, 541 (8th Cir.

1988).

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT..
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Andrea Robetoy, Appellant.

[801 NYS2d 638]

Lahtinen, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Teresi, J.), rendered April 14, 2003 in Albany County, convicting defendant upon her plea of guilty of the crime of attempted criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree.

Defendant waived indictment and agreed to be prosecuted by superior court information charging her with attempted criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree. Defendant, waiving her right to appeal, pleaded guilty as charged and was sentenced as a second felony offender in accordance with the plea agreement to a sentence of IV2 to 3 years to run concurrently with a 10-year sentence from another county. This appeal ensued.

Although not precluded by her waiver of the right to appeal, defendant nevertheless has failed to preserve for our review the validity of the plea inasmuch as she failed to move to withdraw her plea or vacate the judgment of conviction *(see People v Threatt,*16 AD3d 706 [2005]; *People v Moore,*8 AD3d 750 [2004]; *People v Perry,*4 AD3d 618, 619 [2004], *lv denied 2*NY3d 804 [2004]). In any event, our review of the plea colloquy reveals that defendant entered a knowing, voluntary and intelligent plea *(see People v Kemp,*10 AD3d 811 [2004], *lv denied 4*NY3d 765 [2005]). Before pleading guilty, defendant acknowledged that she understood the consequences of the plea and the rights she was relinquishing. She also confirmed that she had enough time to speak with her attorney and was satisfied with the representation provided. Affirming that she was entering into the plea freely and voluntarily, defendant then admitted committing the crime charged, explaining how the crime was perpetrated. “ [Defendant’s affirmative responses to County Court’s questions established the elements of the crime [ ] charged and there is no indication in the record that the voluntary plea was baseless or improvident” *(People v Kemp,*288 AD2d 635, 636 [2001]; *see People v Mondore,*18 AD3d 961, 962 [2005]).

Finally, defendant’s challenge to the severity of her sentence will not be reviewed inasmuch as she knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently entered both the plea and waiver of the right to appeal *(see People v Rogers,*15 AD3d 682 [2005]; *People v Clow,*10 AD3d 803 [2004]).

*1221Crew III, J.P., Peters, Mugglin and Rose, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
STATE v. MILLER

No. COA06-892.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed March 20, 2007.

Certification Date April 9, 2007.

Appeal from Mecklenburg (99CRS23223, 05CRS72327).

Case Reported Without Published Opinion. Affirmed in part; remanded in part.
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 805/2013Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 805/2013 of 23 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 805/2013                     

# of 23 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, 23 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.
Exhibit 31.1




PRESIDENT AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
CERTIFICATION




I, Bradley S. Powell, President and Chief Financial Officer of
Eden Bioscience Corporation, certify that:




1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q
of Eden Bioscience Corporation;




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.  I am responsible for establishing and maintaining
disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:




a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures,
or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant,
including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me 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 and presented in this report my conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and
procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and




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




5.  I have disclosed, based on my most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of
directors:




a)  all significant deficiencies and material
weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely 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 a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.




Date: November 8, 2007


| |  |  |  | /s/ Bradley S. Powell                                  
| |  |  |  | -------------------------------------------------------
| |  |  |  | Bradley S. Powell President and Chief Financial Officer

---
EXHIBIT 32.2

Certification 
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 
(Subsections (a) and (b) of
Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)

Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350,
Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), I, Roger G. Wilson, Chief Financial Officer,
Treasurer and Secretary of Microtek Medical Holdings, Inc., a Georgia corporation (the
Company), do hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that:

This
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2005 (the Form
10-Q) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in this Form 10-Q fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company.

|                 |                                                                 
|---------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------
|November 8, 2005 | /s/ Roger G. Wilson                                             
|                 | Roger G. Wilson
Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Secretary
Order entered December 4, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-00812-CR

KENNETH LIONELLE WILLIAMSON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 1

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F17-75495-H

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s December 2, 2019 second motion to extend the time to 

file appellant’s brief. We GRANT the motion and ORDER appellant’s brief filed on or before 

December 31, 2019. If appellant’s brief is not filed by December 31, 2019, this appeal may be 

abated for the trial court to make findings in accordance with rule of appellate procedure 38.8.

/s/ BILL PEDERSEN, III 

JUSTICE
STATE v. SHARPE

No. COA06-1443.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed June 5, 2007.

Certification Date June 25, 2007.

Appeal from Wake (05CRS112021, 05CRS112022).

Cases reported without published opinion. Affirmed.