alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 2013 on the mobilisation of the EU Solidarity Fund (2014/95/EU)

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council

# of 20 November 2013

# on the mobilisation of the EU Solidarity Fund

# (2014/95/EU)

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission                           on budgetary discipline and sound financial management(1), and in particular point 26 thereof,                        

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 of 11 November 2002 establishing the European Union Solidarity Fund(2),                        

Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,

Whereas:

(1)The European Union has created a European Union Solidarity Fund (the ‘Fund’) to show solidarity with the population of regions                              struck by disasters.

(2)The Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 allows the mobilisation of the Fund within the annual ceiling of EUR 1 billion.

(3)Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 contains the provisions whereby the Fund may be mobilised.

(4)Romania has submitted an application to mobilise the Fund, concerning drought and forest fires.

(5)Germany, Austria and the Czech Republic have submitted applications to mobilise the Fund, concerning a flooding disaster.

HAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

# Article 1U.K.

For the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2013, the European Union Solidarity Fund shall be mobilised                     to provide the sum of EUR 400 519 089 in commitment and payment appropriations.                  

# Article 2U.K.

This Decision shall be published in the *Official Journal of the European Union*.                  

Done at Strasbourg, 20 November 2013.

*For the European Parliament*                            

*The President*                            

M. Schulz                            

*For the Council*                            

*The President*                            

V. Leškevičius                            

1

OJ C 139, 14.6.2006, p. 1.                           

2

OJ L 311, 14.11.2002, p. 3.
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 filing of the Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the Quarter Ended March 23, 2004 (the Report) by ClubCorp, Inc. (Registrant), the undersigned hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:



| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Registrant.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/Robert H. Dedman, Jr.Robert H. Dedman, Jr.Chairman of the Board andChief Executive Officer




A signed original of this
written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
STATE v. JACOBS.

No. COA06-1652.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed January 15, 2008.

Certification Date February 4, 2008.

Appeal from New Hanover (05CRS14256, 05CRS53291, 04CRS64856).

Case reported without published opinion. Jacobs appeal: No error in part, dismissed in part and dismissed in part without prejudice. Criego appeal: No error.
Scott Nash DUNN, Administrator, CTA of the Estate of Myrtle Greeson Canoy, deceased v. Roger Terry CANOY (unmarried); James Leslie Canoy and wife, Nellie Mae Canoy; Brenda Faye Canoy Buckles (divorced); Nancy Lou Canoy Capps and husband, Joseph Farrell Capps Sr.; William Larry Canoy and wife, Faye Voss Canoy; Janie Canoy Sumner and husband, Farrell B. Sumner; Richard Edgar Canoy and wife, Dorothy Coble Canoy; Harold Eugene Canoy and wife, Judith Francis Canoy; Glenn Keith Canoy and wife, Sandra Sadlon Canoy; Robert Wayne Canoy and wife, Delores Johnson Canoy; and Julie H. Stubble-field, Guardian Ad Litem for unborn children appealed by Max D. Ballinger.

No. 633P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 3, 2007.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by Max D. Ballinger on the 12th day of December 2006 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30 (substantial constitutional question), the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the notice of appeal is *767"Dismissed ex mero motu by order of the Court in conference, this the 3rd day of May 2007."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 12th day of December 2006 by Max D. Ballinger 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 3rd day of May 2007."

Justice EDMUNDS recused.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7829
PHILIPE MICHEL LISTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus L. M. SAUNDERS; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER IDDINGS; SERGEANT SANTIAGO, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (CA-94-320-R) Submitted: April 15, 1996 Decided: April 29, 1996 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion. Philipe Michel Liston, Appellant Pro Se. Susan Campbell Alexander, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order granting judgment as a matter of law, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 50, to two of the three Defendants on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) claim. Liston all eged in his complaint that the Defendants' failure to protect him from a violent attack by another inmate constituted cruel and unusual punishment and a denial of due process. We have reviewed the record and the proceedings before the district court and find no reversible error. Finding that the district court intended its order to be final and to dispose of the claim against all three Defendants, we affirm the district court's order as modified to extend to all Defendants n amed in the Complaint. 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.

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED
Chad Everette CALDWELL and wife, Crystal Cope Caldwell v. Randy Dewitt BRANCH and Kristy N. Crawford.

No. 77P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 8, 2007.

Malcolm B. McSpadden, Gastonia, for Branch.

R. Locke Bell, for Bell.

Prior report: 181 N.C.App. 107, 638 S.E.2d 552.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 6th day of February 2007 by Defendant (Branch) 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 8th day of November 2007."
TURNING POINT INDUSTRIES, SDN, BHD v. GLOBAL FURNITURE, INC. and Geologistcs Americas, Inc.

No. 263P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 23, 2007.

Benjamin D. Overby, E. Lawson Brown, Jr., Burlington, for Turning Point Industries.

Karen Strom Talley, Perry C. Henson, Greensboro, for Geologistics Americas, Inc.

Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ___, 643 S.E.2d 664.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 5th day of June 2007 by Plaintiff 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:

*564"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 23rd day of August 2007."
STATE v. LONG.

No. COA06-1602.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed October 2, 2007.

Certification Date October 22, 2007.

Appeal from Lincoln (05CRS53760, 06CRS30).

Case Reported Without Published Opinion. No error.
IN RE S.M.S.

No. COA06-229

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Filed April 17, 2007

Certification Date May 7, 2007

Appeal from Halifax (03J52).

Cases reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ralph Farino, Appellant.

[800 NYS2d 194]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Mullen, J.), rendered April 4, 2002, convicting him of murder in the second degree and arson in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contentions that it was error to charge the jury on both intentional murder *(see*Penal Law § 125.25 [1]) and depraved indifference murder *(see*Penal Law § 125.25 [2]), and that the evidence was legally insufficient to support a conviction of depraved indifference murder *(see*Penal Law § 125.25 [2]; *People v Payne,*3 NY3d 266 [2004]) are unpreserved for appellate review *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Gray,*86 NY2d 10, 19 [1995]), and we decline to reach them in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction *(see*CPL 470.15 [3] [c], [6] [a]).

Most of the errors allegedly made by the prosecutor on summation were not objected to by defense counsel and therefore, are also unpreserved for appellate review *(see People v Rivera,*73 NY2d 941 [1989]). With respect to the only preserved issue, the court clearly instructed the jury that the burden of proof remained on the People and did not shift to the defendant *(see People v Martinez,*5 AD3d 278 [2004]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive *(see People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Krausman, J.P., Luciano, Spolzino and Lifson, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN THE T-NETIX, INC.'S QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE
THREE AND NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 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-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                              14
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   19,966
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,383)
<INVENTORY>                                        192
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                20,725
<PP&E>                                          80,189
<DEPRECIATION>                                (43,637)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  73,844
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           48,878
<BONDS>                                             43
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      2,357
<COMMON>                                           127
<OTHER-SE>                                      22,439
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    73,844
<SALES>                                            494
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                29,287
<CGS>                                              105
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   17,513
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 9,486
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 734
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,554
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,554
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,554
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .08


</TABLE>
STATE v. FRANKS.

No. COA07-95.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed October 2, 2007.

Certification Date October 22, 2007.

Appeal from Davidson (03CRS57752, 03CRS57231, 03CRS57232).

Case Reported Without Published Opinion. Affirmed and remanded for correction of clerical error.
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5596 

To extend the basic pilot program for employment eligibility confirmation. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 12, 2008 

Mr. CALVERT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Education 

and Labor, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, 

in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To extend the basic pilot program for employment eligibility 

confirmation. 

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 BASIC PILOT PROGRAM. 

4 Section 401(b) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and 

5 Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1324a 

6 note) is amended by striking ‘‘in effect.’’ and inserting ‘‘in 

7 effect, except that the basic pilot program described in secVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:52 Mar 13, 2008 Jkt 069200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H5596.IH H5596

smartinez on PRODPC61 with BILLS
2 

•HR 5596 IH

1 tion 403(a) shall terminate not later than December 31, 

2 2018.’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on PRODPC61 with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>	   		5
<CIK>               000929540
<NAME>              SELKIRK COGEN PARTNERS, L.P.
<MULTIPLIER>	 	1,000
       
<S>				                  				<C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>						            9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>					        	Dec-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>			          				Jan-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>				            	    Sep-30-1997
<CASH>				                		    21907
<SECURITIES>						            0
<RECEIVABLES>						           	15808
<ALLOWANCES>						            0
<INVENTORY>							            4798
<CURRENT-ASSETS>			         			43047
<PP&E>							                371285
<DEPRECIATION>						          	46576
<TOTAL-ASSETS>          						401361
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>	     				    26034
<BONDS>								            387372
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>			     	     	0
<PREFERRED>							           	0
<COMMON>							            0
<OTHER-SE>							            (25932)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>			        401361
<SALES>								            127161
<TOTAL-REVENUES>					         	127161
<CGS>								            89918
<TOTAL-COSTS>						           	89918
<OTHER-EXPENSES>					         	4860
<LOSS-PROVISION>					         	0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>					         	24585
<INCOME-PRETAX>					         		7798
<INCOME-TAX>						            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>			      			    7798
<DISCONTINUED>					          		0
<EXTRAORDINARY>			         				0
<CHANGES>							            0
<NET-INCOME>            					    7798
<EPS-PRIMARY>						           	0
<EPS-DILUTED>						           	0
        

</TABLE>
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 28, 2020

No. 04-19-00781-CV

Ernest BUSTOS,

Appellant

v.

BEXAR APPRAISAL DISTRICT, ET AL.,

Appellee

From the 408th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018-CI-16392

Honorable Aaron Haas, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

On August 11, 2020, we sent appellee Bexar County Appraisal Review Board (“ARB”) a 

notice that its brief had not been timely filed. On August 21, 2020, ARB responded by letter, 

requesting an extension of time to file its brief. ARB’s request is GRANTED. ARB’s brief is 

due to be filed on or before August 31, 2020.

ARB states in its letter that it has substituted counsel. If any of ARB’s counsel of record 

wish to withdraw, counsel must file a motion to withdraw in accordance with Rule 6.5 of the 

Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 28th day of August, 2020.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court

FILE COPY
**Exhibit  15(a)(l)(i)**

 

 

WachoviaSecurities8739 Research Drive, URP4Charlotte, NC 28288

 

**WACHOVIA SECURITIES**

 

**OFFICER’S CERTIFICATE**

 

Reference is hereby made to that certainPooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of May 1, 1997 by and among First UnionCommercial Mortgage Securities, Inc. as Depositor, Wachovia Bank, NationalAssociation (formerly know as First Union National Bank) as Master Servicer(the “Master Servicer”), CRIIMI MAE Services Limited Partnership as SpecialServicer, and U.S. Bank National Association (successor in interest to StateStreet Bank and Trust Company) as Trustee, with respect to Commercial MortgagePass-Through Certificates, Series 1997-C1 (the “Agreement”). Capitalized termsused herein not otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in theAgreement.

 

Pursuant to Section 3.13 of this Agreement,Timothy E. Steward and Clyde M. Alexander, Directors of the Master Servicer, dohereby certify that:

 

1.               A review of the activities of the MasterServicer during the period from January 1, 2003 through December 31, 2003 andof its performance under the Agreement during such period has been made underour supervision; and

 

2.               To the best of our knowledge, based on suchreview, the Master Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under theAgreement in all material respects throughout the period January 1, 2003through December 31, 2003; and

 

3.               The Master Servicer has received no noticeregarding qualification, or challenging the status of any portion of the TrustFund as a REMIC from the Internal Revenue Service or any other governmentalagency or body.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned haveexecuted this Certificate as of the 12th day of March 2004.

 
| /s/ Timothy E. Steward                         |   | /s/ Clyde M. Alexander                         |
|------------------------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------------|
| Timothy E. Steward, Director                   |   | Clyde M. Alexander,  Director                  |
| Wachovia Bank, National  Association           |   | Wachovia Bank, National  Association           |
| (formerly know as First  Union National  Bank) |   | (formerly know as First  Union National  Bank) |

 

----
<PAGE> 1
                                                               EXHIBIT 24(b)

                               SOLUTIA INC.

                               CERTIFICATE


      I, Karen L. Knopf, Assistant Secretary of Solutia Inc. (the "Company"),
hereby certify that the following is a full, true and correct copy of a
resolution adopted by the Board of Directors of the Company on February 25,
1998, at which meeting a quorum was present and acting throughout:

      RESOLVED, that each officer and director who may be required to sign
      and execute the 10-K or any document in connection therewith (whether
      for and on behalf of the Company, or as an officer or director of the
      Company, or otherwise), be and hereby is authorized to execute a power
      of attorney appointing Karl R. Barnickol and Karen L. Knopf, or either
      of them acting alone, his or her true and lawful attorney or attorneys
      to sign in his or her name, place and stead in any such capacity such
      Form 10-K and any and all amendments thereto and documents in
      connection therewith, and to file the same with the Commission or any
      other governmental body, each of said attorneys to have power to act
      with or without the others, and to have full power and authority to do
      and perform, in the name and on behalf of each of said officers and
      directors, every act whatsoever which such attorneys, or any one of
      them, may deem necessary, appropriate or desirable to be done in
      connection therewith as fully and to all intents and purposes as such
      officers or directors might or could do in person.

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand in my official capacity
and affixed the corporate seal of the Company this 2nd day of March, 1998.



                                         /s/Karen L. Knopf
                                    -------------------------------
                                         Karen L. Knopf
                                         Assistant Secretary


SEAL
**Exhibit 31.1****Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) Certification of Principal Executive Officer**I, James H. Long, certify that:1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of INX Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) forthe registrant and have:a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report my conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andc) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb) 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: March 24, 2006 /s/ JAMES H. LONG   James H. Long, Chief Executive Officer