alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-01-2000
<CASH>                                      12,700,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                              103,000,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                 70,000,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           196,500,000
<PP&E>                                      92,900,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              48,200,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             607,500,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       84,000,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       200,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 232,000,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               607,500,000
<SALES>                                    223,800,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           223,800,000
<CGS>                                      132,800,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              263,300,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           (2,100,000)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           4,700,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (42,100,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,500,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (43,600,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (2.63)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.63)


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR 
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998 
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998 
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998 
<CASH>                                          16,191 
<SECURITIES>                                    14,791 
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,779 
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0 
<INVENTORY>                                          0 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                36,478 
<PP&E>                                          12,469 
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,280 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  55,566
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,905
<BONDS>                                          3,889 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0 
<COMMON>                                           197 
<OTHER-SE>                                      41,091  
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    55,566 
<SALES>                                              0 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                13,197 
<CGS>                                                0 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   24,157
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                33,813  
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (44,773)  
<INCOME-TAX>                                       100
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (44,873)  
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0 
<CHANGES>                                            0 
<NET-INCOME>                                   (44,873)  
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (2.86) 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (2.86) 
        

</TABLE>
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 687/2013Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 687/2013 of 18 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 687/2013                     

# of 18 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, 18 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.
Exhibit10.12

May  31,2005

Campbell & Company, Inc.Court TowerBuilding210 West Pennsylvania AvenueSuite 770Towson, MD21204

Attn: Ms.  TerryBecks

Re: Management AgreementRenewals

Dear Ms.  Becks:

We arewriting with respect to your management agreements concerning thecommodity pools to which reference is made below (the"Management Agreements"). We are extendingthe term of the Management Agreements through June  30,2006 and all other provisions of the Management Agreements will remainunchanged.

|  |              |                                       |
|--|--------------|---------------------------------------|
|  | •  | Smith Barney Potomac FuturesFund L.P. |

|  |              |                                           |
|--|--------------|-------------------------------------------|
|  | •  | Smith Barney DiversifiedFutures Fund L.P. |

|  |              |                                              |
|--|--------------|----------------------------------------------|
|  | •  | Smith BarneyDiversified Futures Fund L.P. II |

|  |              |                                             |
|--|--------------|---------------------------------------------|
|  | •  | SmithBarney Global Markets Futures FundL.P. |

|  |              |                                                  |
|--|--------------|--------------------------------------------------|
|  | •  | Smith Barney Global DiversifiedFutures Fund L.P. |

|  |              |                                                       |
|--|--------------|-------------------------------------------------------|
|  | •  | Salomon Smith BarneyDiversified 2000 Futures FundL.P. |

|  |              |            |
|--|--------------|------------|
|  | •  | AURORA2001 |

|  |              |           |
|--|--------------|-----------|
|  | •  | AURORAIII |

|  |              |                               |
|--|--------------|-------------------------------|
|  | •  | CMF Campbell Master Fund L.P. |

Please acknowledge receipt of this modification by signingone copy of this letter and returning it to the attention of Mr.Daniel  McAuliffe at the address above or fax to 212-793-1986. Ifyou have any questions I can be reached at212-559-5043.

Very truly yours,

CITIGROUPMANAGED FUTURES LLC

|           |                                                                                          |
|-----------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| By:  | /s/Daniel R. McAuliffe, Jr.Daniel R. McAuliffe, Jr.ChiefFinancial Officer & Director |

CAMPBELL & COMPANY,INC.

|           |                  |
|-----------|------------------|
| By:  | /s/ TheresaBecks |

Print Name: Theresa Becks

DRMcA/sr

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7969

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JIMMY LAMONT WRIGHT,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief

District Judge. (2:11-cr-00072-RBS-FBS-1; 2:13-cv-00481-RBS)

Submitted: April 17, 2014 Decided: April 21, 2014

Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jimmy Lamont Wright, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Bartlett 

Fitzwater, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Benjamin L. 

Hatch, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Jimmy Lamont Wright seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012)

motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or 

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Wright has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
IN RE J.J.

No. COA07-1042.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed January 15, 2008.

Certification Date February 4, 2008.

Appeal from Durham (04J249).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
Order entered October 29, 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 13
- 00236
- CR OTIS GARDNER, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 204th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court C ause No. F10
- 56220
- Q



### O RDER The Court ORDERS the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine why appellant’s brief has not been filed. In this regard, the trial court shall make appropriate findings and recommendations and determine whether appellant de sires to prosecute the appeal, whether appellant is indigent, or if not indigent, whether retained counsel has abandoned the appeal. See
T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.8( b ). If the trial court cannot obtain appellant’s presence at the hearing, the
trial court shall conduct the hearing in appellant’s absence. See Meza v. State , 742 S.W.2d 708 (Tex. App.

– Corpus Christi 1987, no pet.) (per curiam). If appellant is indigent, the trial court is ORDERED to take such measures as may be necessary to assure effective repres entation, which may include appointment of new counsel.We ORDER the trial court to transmit a record of the proceedings, which shall include

written findings and recommendations, to this Court within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this order. This appeal is ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with the above order. The appeal shall be reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the findings are received, whichever is earlier.

/s/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3498 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3498

To amend title 46, United States Code, to extend the exemption from the 
fire-retardant materials construction requirement for vessels operating 
                       within the Boundary Line.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 16, 2008

  Mr. Voinovich (for himself, Mr. Brown, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Cochran, Mr. 
 Vitter, Mr. Obama, Mr. Bayh, and Mr. Lugar) introduced the following 
 bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, 
                      Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 46, United States Code, to extend the exemption from the 
fire-retardant materials construction requirement for vessels operating 
                       within the Boundary Line.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF EXEMPTION.

    Section 3503(a) of title 46, United States Code, is amended by 
striking ``2008'' and inserting ``2018''.
                                 <all>
```
Alvin B. BYRD, Employee v. ECOFIBERS, INC., Employer and Hartford Insurance Company, Carrier.

No. 229P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 23, 2007.

Lawrence J. Goldman, Charlotte, for Ecofibers, et al.

Cecil Lee Porter, North Wilkesboro, for Byrd.

Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ___, 645 S.E.2d 80.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 15th day of May 2007 by Defendants 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 23rd day of August 2007."
Exhibit 32.1  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  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), the undersigned officer of New NRG, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to the best of his knowledge, that:  1. The Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2006 (the "Report") of the Company complies in all material respects 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 the Company.  /s/ Erik S. Nelson Erik S. Nelson, Chief Executive Officer  Date: October 5, 2007    {A0041355.DOC}
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                           8,204
<SECURITIES>                                     1,507
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,458
<ALLOWANCES>                                       292
<INVENTORY>                                        460
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                11,830
<PP&E>                                           9,729
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,527
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  14,134
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,640
<BONDS>                                          1,903
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            30
<OTHER-SE>                                       9,217
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    14,134
<SALES>                                          6,625
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,625
<CGS>                                            2,445
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,445
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   185
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    16
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 367
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (7,263)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (7,263)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (7,263)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.24)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.24)


</TABLE>
```

EXHIBIT 99.1

                            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 accompanying Annual Report of Enviro Voraxial
Technology, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ending
December 31, 2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), I, ALBERTO DIBELLA, Principal Executive Officer and
Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, to the best of my knowledge, 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 fully presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

By:      /s/ ALBERTO DIBELLA
         -------------------
         ALBERTO DIBELLA
         Principal Executive Officer
         and Principal Financial Officer
         April 15, 2003
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-6636

MCDONALD WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

CHARLES HAWLEY; THOMAS BREEDLOVE,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

T. L. JACOBS,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, District Judge.

(CA-97-736-5F)

Submitted: July 13, 2000 Decided: July 25, 2000

Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

McDonald Williams, Appellant Pro Se. James Carol Worthington, POE,

HOOF & REINHARDT, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

McDonald Williams appeals the district court’s order granting

in part and denying in part relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West

Supp. 2000) complaint. He raised claims regarding the confiscation

of tennis shoes and money orders during a search. The district

court denied relief on Williams’ claim regarding his tennis shoes.

Our review of the record reveals that the district court’s order

was correct as to this claim. Accordingly, we affirm on this claim

on the reasoning of the district court. See Williams v. Hawley,

No. CA-97-736-SF (E.D.N.C. May 11, 1998; May 30, 2000).

Williams’ claim regarding his money orders was referred to a

magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1994). The

magistrate judge recommended that partial relief be granted and

advised Williams that failure to file timely objections to this

recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court

order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Williams failed to object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation.

The timely filing of objections to a magistrate’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the

substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned

that failure to object will waive appellate review. See Wright v.

Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v.

Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Williams has waived appellate review as

to this money order claim by failing to file objections after
3

receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of

the district court as to this claim. 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
SANDY MUSH PROPERTIES, INC. and FLAT ROCK INDUSTRIES, INC. v. RUTHERFORD COUNTY by and through the Rutherford County Board of Commissioners.

No. 67PA07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 24, 2007.

Roy H. Michaux, Jr., Charlotte, Ann M. Anderson, Research Triangle Park, Walter H. Dalton, Elizabeth Thomas Miller, Rutherfordton, for Mush Properties, et al.

Forrest A. Ferrell, Warren Hutton, Stephen L. Palmer, Hickory, for Rutherford County.

Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ___, 638 S.E.2d 557.

*ORDER*

The plaintiff's Petition for Discretionary Review is allowed for the limited purpose of remanding this case to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration of its decision in light of *Robins v. Town of Hillsborough,*361 N.C. 193, 639 S.E.2d 421 (2007). The defendant's Conditional Petition for Discretionary Review is dismissed as moot.

By order of the Court in Conference, this 23rd day of August, 2007.