alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ELLISON v. DANA CORP.

No. COA07-778.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed March 4, 2008.

Certification Date March 24, 2008.

Appeal from NC Industrial Commission (I.C. 488865).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3317 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

101 West Main Street in Waterville, New York, as the ‘‘Corporal John 

P. Sigsbee Post Office’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 23, 2008 

Mrs. CLINTON introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 101 West Main Street in Waterville, New 

York, as the ‘‘Corporal John P. Sigsbee Post Office’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CORPORAL JOHN P. SIGSBEE POST OFFICE. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 101 West Main Street in 

6 Waterville, New York, shall be known and designated as 

7 the ‘‘Corporal John P. Sigsbee Post Office’’. 

8 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg9 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

•S 3317 IS

1 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

2 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Corporal John P. 

3 Sigsbee Post Office’’. 

Æ 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

JESSICA LYNN ALINSKY,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 3 MAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 24th day of June, 2022

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
INK PEN RETREAT CORP. v. HUNTER HEATH TRUST.

No. COA07-418.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed March 4, 2008.

Certification Date March 24, 2008.

Appeal from Onslow (06CVS714).

Case reported without published opinion. Dismissed and remanded with instructions.
# The Enterprise Act 2002 (Part 8 EU Infringements) Order 2013 (revoked)

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

Statutory Instruments

# 2013 No. 3168

Consumer Protection

# The Enterprise Act 2002 (Part 8 EU Infringements) Order 2013

Made

11th December 2013

Laid before Parliament

13th December 2013

Coming into force

13th June 2014

The Secretary of State makes the following Order in exercise of the powers conferred by section 212(3) and (6) of the Enterprise                           Act 2002 F1.                        

F12002 c.40.

## Citation and commencementU.K.

1.  This Order may be cited as the Enterprise Act 2002 (Part 8 EU Infringements) Order 2013 and comes into force on 13th June                     2014.                  

## Listed Directive and Specified LawU.K.

2.  The law set out in the Schedule to this Order is specified for the purposes of section 212(3) to the extent that it gives                     effect to the listed Directive or provides additional permitted protections.                  

Jo Swinson

 Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Employment Relations and Consumer Affairs

 Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

11th December 2013

 Article 2

## SCHEDULEU.K.LISTED DIRECTIVE

F2OJ L 304, 22.11.2011, p. 64.

F3S.I. 2013/3134.

F4S.I. 2012/3110.

## Explanatory Note

(This note is not part of the Order)

This Order specifies, for the purposes of section 212 of the Enterprise Act 2002 (“the 2002 Act”) the UK law which gives effect to Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on consumer rights,                        amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (“the Directive”).                     

With the exception of one provision, the provisions of the Directive are implemented by the Consumer Contracts (Information,                        Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 (“the 2013 Regulations”). The remaining provision, article 19, is implemented by regulations 4, 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the Consumer Rights (Payment Surcharges)                        Regulations 2012 (“the Payment Surcharges Regulations”). This Order provides that the enforcement procedures set out in Part 8 of the 2002 Act apply in relation to breaches of                        the 2013 Regulations and the relevant provisions of the Payment Surcharges Regulations.                     

Impact assessments of the effect that the 2013 Regulations and the Payment Surcharges Regulations will have on the costs of                        business, the voluntary sector and the public sector are available from the BIS website at www.gov.uk/bis. Copies can be obtained                        from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, 1 Victoria Street, London SW1H 0ET.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-07-00139-CV

Appellants, David Lovelace and Melissa Lovelace // Cross-Appellant, Lake Travis

Independent School District

v.

Appellee, Lake Travis Independent School District // Cross-Appellees, David Lovelace and

Melissa Lovelace

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 126TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. D-1-GN-06-003726, HONORABLE SUZANNE COVINGTON, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

David Lovelace, Melissa Lovelace, and Lake Travis Independent School District have

filed a joint motion to consolidate their two appeals in cause numbers 03-06-00742-CV and 03-07-

00139-CV. We agree that judicial economy is best served by considering these two related matters

together. We consolidate both appeals into the pending appeal in cause number 03-06-00742-CV.

The record and all pertinent documents from this proceeding will be transferred into cause number

03-06-00742-CV. Because there will be no further activity in cause number 03-07-00139-CV, the

cause is dismissed.

_____________________________________

Diane Henson, Justice

Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Puryear and Henson

Dismissed

Filed: April 18, 2007
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 771/2013Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 771/2013 of 9 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 771/2013                     

# of 9 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, 9 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.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Donald A. Soop, Appellant, v Borg Warner Automotive et al., Respondents. Workers’ Compensation Board, Respondent.

[799 NYS2d 673]

Crew III, J.P.

Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed November 18, 2003, which ruled that claimant voluntarily withdrew from the labor market and denied his claim for workers’ compensation benefits.

Claimant was employed as an electrician by Borg Warner Automotive. In February 2001, claimant left work upon experiencing pain in his neck and left shoulder. Upon his return to work, claimant was assigned janitorial work because his work as an electrician was too taxing. In March 2001, claimant resumed his work as an electrician but again left work in April 2001 on the advice of his physician. As of May 2001, claimant’s physician was of the opinion that claimant was permanently disabled such that he could no longer work as an electrician.

Claimant filed separate claims seeking compensation for his February 2001 and April 2001 work-related injuries. During the proceedings that ensued, claimant’s physician testified that claimant was totally disabled with respect to his prior work as an electrician but that he could perform sedentary work. The *669evidence further revealed that claimant’s employer offered such work, which claimant declined. As a consequence, the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge determined that claimant was not entitled to compensation benefits subsequent to April 2001, and the Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed that determination, finding that claimant voluntarily withdrew from the labor market. Claimant now appeals.

It is axiomatic that the question of whether a claimant has voluntarily withdrawn from the labor market is a factual issue for the Board to resolve, and its determination must be upheld if supported by substantial evidence *(see Matter of Trank v Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., Inc., 17*AD3d 801, 801 [2005]). In turn, whether a claimant’s failure to accept a light-duty assignment constitutes a voluntary withdrawal from the labor market likewise is a factual issue for the Board, and its determination will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence *(see Matter of Smith v Waterview Nursing Home,*13 AD3d 744, 745 [2004]).

The record reflects that claimant acknowledged that he was capable of performing light-duty work and that his employer offered him such work, which claimant rejected. Moreover, claimant’s own physician testified that claimant was capable of performing sedentary work. Finally, the employer wrote to claimant indicating the availability of sedentary work in the stores area, which involved inputting data and stocking items within claimant’s weight restrictions. The letter concluded that the employer was willing to meet any restrictions claimant may have in order to allow him to continue to work. Given that, there can be no doubt that substantial evidence exists supporting the Board’s determination. We have considered claimant’s remaining contentions and find them equally without merit.

Spain, Mugglin, Rose and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
EXHIBIT 32.02



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)



In connection with the accompanying periodic report of Glenborough Realty Trust Incorporated (the Company) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended
March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Brian Peay, Chief Financial 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.



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



|                       |  |                                      
|---------------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: January 24, 2006 |  | /s/ Brian Peay                       
|                       |  | Brian Peay                           
|                       |  | Chief Financial Officer              
|                       |  | Glenborough Realty Trust Incorporated
# Council Decision of 29 September 2014 appointing a Polish member of the European Economic and Social Committee (2014/693/EU)

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Council Decision

# of 29 September 2014

# appointing a Polish member of the European Economic and Social Committee

# (2014/693/EU)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 302 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal of the Polish Government,

Having regard to the opinion of the European Commission,

Whereas:

(1)On 13 September 2010 the Council adopted Decision 2010/570/EU, Euratom appointing the members of the European Economic and                              Social Committee for the period from 21 September 2010 to 20 September 2015(1).

(2)A member's seaton the European Economic and Social Committee has become vacant following the end of the term of office of                              Ms Marzena MENDZA-DROZD,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

# Article 1U.K.

Mr Michal Grzegorz MODRZEJEWSKI is hereby appointed as a member of the European Economic and Social Committee for the remainder                     of the current term of office, which runs until 20 September 2015.                  

# Article 2U.K.

This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.

Done at Brussels, 29 September 2014.

*For the Council*                            

*The President*                            

S. Gozi                            

1

OJ L 251, 25.9.2010, p. 8.
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 99.5

                            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 OAO Technology Solutions, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Charles A. Leader, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to and for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

(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.

Date:  March 27, 2003            By:     /s/ Charles A. Leader
                                         -----------------------------------
                                         Charles A. Leader
                                         President and Chief Executive Officer
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Anthony V. Lombardino and Robert Babayev, on Behalf of Nancy Jace and Danny Nicholas, Petitioners, v Commissioner of the Department of Corrections, Respondent. Richard A. Brown, Nonparty.

[800 NYS2d 645]

Writ of habeas corpus in the nature of an application for bail reduction upon Queens County indictment No. 1509/05.

Adjudged that the writ is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The determination of the Supreme Court, Queens County, was not an improvident exercise of discretion, and did not violate “constitutional or statutory standards” *(People ex rel. Klein v Krueger,*25 NY2d 497, 499 [1969]; *see People ex rel. Rosenthal v Wolfson,*48 NY2d 230 [1979]). Santucci, J.P., Goldstein, Luciano and Fisher, JJ., concur.
STATE of North Carolina v. Raymond Lee MUELLER.

No. 519P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 6, 2007.

James R. Parish, Fayetteville, for Mueller.

Margaret Force, Assistant Attorney General, Kristy M. Newton, District Attorney, for State of NC.

Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ___, 647 S.E.2d 440.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 23rd day of October 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 6th day of December 2007."
STATE v. Byron Lamar WARING.

No. 525A07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 21, 2007.

Mary S. Pollard, for Waring.

Doug Faucette, for State of NC.

Robert Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, C. Colon Willoughby, Jr., District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 19th day of December 2007 by Defendant for Extension of Time for Court Reporter to Deliver Transcript:

"Motion Allowed. Court reporter shall have up to and including the 8th day of January 2008 to prepare and deliver transcript to counsel. By order of the Court in conference this the 21st day of December 2007."
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED February 18, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-20525 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ROBERTO SALAS, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-99-CR-149-3

-------------------- Before HIGGINBOTHAM, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Roberto Salas appeals his guilty-plea conviction and sentence imposed for possession with intent to distribute 100 kilograms of marijuana and aiding and abetting in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 and 18 U.S.C. § 2. He argues that 21 U.S.C. § 841 is unconstitutional in view of Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000). He acknowledges that this argument is foreclosed by United States v. Slaughter , 238 F.3d 580, 582 (5th Cir. 2000), but states that he is raising it to preserve it for possibleNo. 03-20525 -2- Supreme Court review. The argument that Apprendi rendered 21 U.S.C. § 841 facially unconstitutional was rejected in Slaughter
. We are bound by this precedent absent an intervening Supreme Court decision or a subsequent en banc decision. See United States v. Short , 181 F.3d 620, 624 (5th Cir. 1999). Therefore, this issue is foreclosed. Salas argues that the supervised release condition which prohibits him from possessing dangerous weapons conflicts with the district court’s oral pronouncement of the sentence and must be deleted. The Sentencing Guidelines recommend that all defendants who have been convicted of a felony be prohibited from possessing any dangerous weapon during the term of supervised release. U.S.S.G. § 5D1.3(d)(1). “If the district court orally imposes a sentence without stating the conditions applicable to this period of supervision, the judgment’s inclusion of conditions that are mandatory, standard, or recommended by the Sentencing Guidelines does not create a conflict with the oral pronouncement.” United States v. Torres-Aguilar , 352 F.3d 934, 938 (5th Cir. 2003).
AFFIRMED.
# Council Decision of 28 January 2014 on the conclusion of the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Union and            the Republic of Mauritius (2014/146/EU)         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Council Decision

# of 28 January 2014

# on the conclusion of the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Mauritius

# (2014/146/EU)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 43, in conjunction with point                           (a) of Article 218(6) thereof,                        

Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,

Having regard to the consent of the European Parliament,

Whereas:

(1)The Union negotiated with the Republic of Mauritius a Fisheries Partnership Agreement providing EU vessels with fishing opportunities                              in the waters over which the Republic of Mauritius exercises its sovereignty or jurisdiction.

(2)The Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Mauritius (‘the Fisheries Partnership Agreement’)                              was signed in accordance with Council Decision 2012/670/EU of 9 October 2012 on the signing, on behalf of the European Union,                              of the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Mauritius(1).

(3)The Fisheries Partnership Agreement should be approved,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

# Article 1U.K.

The Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Mauritius is hereby approved on behalf                     of the Union.                  

The text of the Fisheries Partnership Agreement is attached to this Decision.

# Article 2U.K.

The President of the Council shall give, on behalf of the Union, the notifications provided for in Article 17 of the Fisheries                     Partnership Agreement(2).                  

# Article 3U.K.

This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.

Done at Brussels, 28 January 2014.

*For the Council*                            

*The President*                            

G. Stournaras                            

1

OJ L 300, 30.10.2012, p. 34.                           

2

The date of entry into force of the Agreement will be published in the *Official Journal of the European Union* by the General Secretariat of the Council.