alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
STATE of North Carolina v. Christopher FIELDS.

No. 587P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 10, 2008.

Matthew Wunsche, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Fields.

Marcus Lodge, Special Deputy Attorney General, R. Stuart Albright, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 11th day of December 2007 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 10th day of April 2008."
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3681 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 9, 2008 

Referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 5070 Vegas Valley Drive in Las Vegas, Nevada, as the ‘‘Joseph A. Ryan Post Office Building’’. 

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


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
2 

S 3681 RFH 

1 SECTION 1. JOSEPH A. RYAN POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

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

3 Postal Service located at 5070 Vegas Valley Drive in Las 

4 Vegas, Nevada, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Jo5 seph A. Ryan Post Office Building’’. 

6 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg7 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

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

9 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Joseph A. Ryan Post 

10 Office Building’’. 

Passed the Senate November 20, 2008. 

Attest: NANCY ERICKSON, 

Secretary. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3398 

To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act with respect to liability 

under State and local requirements respecting devices. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 31, 2008 

Mr. REID (for Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. DODD, Mr. HARKIN, Ms. MIKULSKI, Mr. BINGAMAN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. REED, Mrs. 

CLINTON, Mr. OBAMA, Mr. SANDERS, Mr. BROWN, and Mr. 

WHITEHOUSE)) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act with 

respect to liability under State and local requirements 

respecting devices. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Medical Device Safety 

5 Act of 2008’’. 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
2 

•S 3398 IS

1 SEC. 2. LIABILITY UNDER STATE AND LOCAL REQUIRE2 MENTS RESPECTING DEVICES. 

3 (a) AMENDMENT.—Section 521 of the Federal Food, 

4 Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360k) is amended by 

5 adding at the end the following: 

6 ‘‘(c) NO EFFECT ON LIABILITY UNDER STATE

7 LAW.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to mod8 ify or otherwise affect any action for damages or the liabil9 ity of any person under the law of any State.’’. 

10 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE; APPLICABILITY.—The amend11 ment made by subsection (a) shall— 

12 (1) take effect as if included in the enactment 

13 of the Medical Device Amendments of 1976 (Public 

14 Law 94–295); and 

15 (2) apply to any civil action pending or filed on 

16 or after the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1185/2014Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1185/2014 of 3 November 2014 establishing the standard import values for determining            the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1185/2014                     

# of 3 November 2014

# 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 Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing                           a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79,                           (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007(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, 3 November 2014.

*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 347, 20.12.2013, p. 671.                           

2

OJ L 157, 15.6.2011, p. 1.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Alex Felder, Appellant.

[801 NYS2d 166]

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Sullivan County (LaBuda, J.), rendered April 11, 2003, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimes of rape in the first degree, robbery in the second degree and assault in the second degree.

In satisfaction of two indictments arising out of two separate incidents, defendant pleaded guilty to robbery in the second degree, assault in the second degree and rape in the first degree. Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, defendant was sentenced to an aggregate prison term of 15 years with five years of postrelease supervision.

Defendant’s sole contention on appeal is that the sentence is harsh and excessive. However, defendant’s knowing, voluntary and intelligent guilty plea and waiver of the right to appeal precludes him from challenging his sentence *(see People v Conley,*19 AD3d 809 [2005]; *People v Clow,*10 AD3d 803, 804 [2004]). Accordingly, the judgment must be affirmed.

Cardona, P.J., Spain, Mugglin, Rose and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
STATE v. Joan Myrtle SHANNON.

No. 177A07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

July 30, 2007.

William P. Hart, Senior Deputy Attorney General, Amy C. Kunstling, Assistant Attorney General, Edward W. Grannis, Jr., District Attorney, for State of NC.

Constance E. Widenhouse, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Shannon.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 30th day of July 2007 by Conference of District Attorneys for leave to file Amicus Curiae Brief:

"Motion Allowed. Unless already submitted, the Amicus Brief shall be submitted to the court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 28(i). By order of the Court in conference this the 30th day of July 2007."
Exhibit 21

SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

The following list sets forth the direct and indirect subsidiaries of the registrant
as of April 2, 2007 and their respective jurisdictions of incorporation or organization:



|                                |  |                       
|------------------------------- |  | ----------------------
|SUBSIDIARY                      |  | JURISDICTION          
|Vert Tech LLC                   |  | Delaware              
|Verticalnet Ltd. (Israel)       |  | Israel                
|Verticalnet International LLC   |  | Delaware              
|Verticalnet Europe B.V.         |  | Amsterdam, Netherlands
|Verticalnet Software, Inc.      |  | Delaware              
|Verticalnet Employees I Corp.   |  | Delaware              
|Tigris Consulting UK, Ltd.      |  | England and Wales     
|Verticalnet Employees II Corp.  |  | Delaware              
|Digital Union, LTD              |  | England and Wales     
|B2eMarkets, B.V.                |  | Amsterdam, Netherlands
|B2eMarkets UK Ltd.              |  | England and Wales     
|B2eMarkets France S.A.R.L.      |  | France                
|B2e Contract Management, Inc.   |  | Delaware              
|B2e Sourcing Optimization, Inc. |  | Delaware
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

499 

OP 14-01988 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ. 

 

IN THE MATTER OF COLEEN LAUZONIS AND 

FLAHERTY & SHEA, PETITIONERS,

V ORDER

HONORABLE FRANK CARUSO, SUPREME COURT 

JUSTICE, RESPONDENT. 

FLAHERTY & SHEA, BUFFALO (KATHLEEN E. HOROHOE OF COUNSEL), FOR

PETITIONERS.

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (OWEN DEMUTH OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (initiated in the

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial

Department pursuant to CPLR 506 [b][1]) for an order directing

respondent to rule on pending motions.

Now, upon reading and filing the stipulation of discontinuance

signed by the attorneys for the parties on March 31, 2015,

It is hereby ORDERED that said proceeding is unanimously

dismissed without costs upon stipulation.

Entered: May 1, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
STATE v. Eric Glenn LANE.

No. 606A05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

July 25, 2008.

Robert Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, C. Branson Vickory, III, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 25th day of July 2008 by Defendant for Extension of Time to File Brief:

"Motion Allowed. Defendant (Eric Glenn Lane) shall have up to and including the 28th day of July 2008 to file and serve his/her brief, with this Court By order of the Court in conference this the 25th day of July 2008."
STATE of North Carolina v. Carl Wayne MOORE, Jr.

No. 451P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 10, 2008.

Ann B. Petersen, Chapel Hill, for Moore.

R. Marcus Lodge, Assistant Attorney General, Seth Edwards, District Attorney, for State of NC.

Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ___, 648 S.E.2d 288.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 11th day of September 2007 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 10th day of April 2008."
STATE of North Carolina v. Chester Brigg SYKES.

No. 461P07-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 11, 2008.

Chester Brigg Sykes, Pro Se.

Robert Montgomery, Elizabeth Strickland, Special Deputy Attorney Generals, Rex Gore, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 11th day of March 2008 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 11th day of June 2008."
STATE v. Byron Lamar WARING.

No. 525A07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 23, 2008.

Mary S. Pollard, for Waring.

Doug Faucette, 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 17th day of April 2008 by Defendant for Extension of Time to Serve Proposed Record:

"Motion Allowed. Defendant shall have up to and including the 1st day of October 2008 to serve his/her proposed record upon the district attorney. The parties shall then proceed to settle and file the record on appeal pursuant to the provisions of Appellate Rules 11 and 12. By order of the Court in conference this the 23rd day of April 2008."
NOTE
  Company TOYOTA
MOTOR CREDIT CORPORATION Lender Credit Agreement
 Section 2.04(f)
   [Remainder of page left blank intentionally; signature page follows.]




---



##### 



SONIC AUTOMOTIVE, INC.By:
    /s/ DAVID P. COSPERName:
    David P. CosperTitle:
    Vice Chairman and Chief Financial Officer




---



##### 



LOANS AND PAYMENTS WITH RESPECT THERETO
 Amount ofPrincipal or
    
    OutstandingEnd of
    
    Interest
    
    PrincipalType of
    
    Amount of
    
    Interest
    
    Paid This
    
    BalanceDate
    
    Loan Made
    
    Loan Made
    
    Period
    
    Date
    
    This Date
    
    Notation Made By
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3605 

To extend the pilot program for volunteer groups to obtain criminal history 

background checks. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 26 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 17), 2008 

Mr. REID (for Mr. BIDEN (for himself and Mr. HATCH)) introduced the following bill; which was read twice, considered, read the third time, and 

passed 

A BILL 

To extend the pilot program for volunteer groups to obtain 

criminal history background checks. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Criminal History 

5 Background Checks Pilot Extension Act of 2008’’. 

6 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF PILOT PROGRAM. 

7 Section 108(a)(3)(A) of the PROTECT Act (42 

8 U.S.C. 5119a note) is amended by striking ‘‘a 66-month’’ 

9 and inserting ‘‘a 78-month’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
EXHIBIT 10.35

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



 



 

 

 



 



 

 

 



 



 

 

 



 



 

 

 



 



 

 

 



 



 

 

 



 



 

 

 



 



 

 

 



 



 

 

 



 



 

 



 

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---
# The Smoke Control Areas (Exempted Fireplaces) (England) (No. 2) (Amendment) Order 2013

        - Previous
        - Next

E+W+S

This Statutory Instrument has been made to amend a defect in the Smoke Control Areas (Exempted Fireplaces) (England) (No. 2) Order 2013 (S.I. 2013/2112) and is being issued free of charge to all known recipients of that Statutory Instrument.                     

Statutory Instruments

# 2013 No. 3026

Clean Air, England

# The Smoke Control Areas (Exempted Fireplaces) (England) (No. 2) (Amendment) Order 2013

Made

28th November 2013

Laid before Parliament

4th December 2013

Coming into force

25th December 2013

The Secretary of State makes the following Order in exercise of the powers conferred by section 21 of the Clean Air Act 1993(1).                        

The Secretary of State is satisfied that the fireplace exempted by this Order can be used for burning fuel other than authorised                           fuels(2) without producing any smoke or a substantial quantity of smoke.                        

## Citation and commencementE+W+S

1.  This Order—                  

(a)may be cited as the Smoke Control Areas (Exempted Fireplaces) (England) (No. 2) (Amendment) Order 2013;                  

(b)comes into force on 25th December 2013.                  

## Amendment to the Smoke Control Areas (Exempted Fireplaces) (England) (No. 2) Order 2013E+W+S

2.—(1) The Smoke Control Areas (Exempted Fireplaces) (England) (No. 2) Order 2013(3) is amended as follows.                  

(2) In the Schedule in the entry beginning “Sirius 490 Sigma MF”, after “Sirius 490 Scene MF” insert, “Sirius 790 Sigma MF”.

Dan Rogerson

Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for the Environment

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

28th November 2013

## EXPLANATORY NOTE

(This note is not part of the Order)

This Order amends the Smoke Control Areas (Exempted Fireplaces) (England) Order (No. 2) 2013 (S.I. 2013/2112) which exempts various fireplaces from the provisions of section 20 of the Clean Air Act 1993 (prohibition of smoke emissions                     in smoke control areas), subject to the conditions set out in the Schedule.                  

One entry has been inserted into the Schedule in order to exempt an additional fireplace (the Sirius 790 Sigma MF).

A full impact assessment has not been produced as no impact on the private, voluntary or public sectors is foreseen.

1

1993 c. 11.                           

2

Fuels declared by the Secretary of State to be authorised fuels for the purposes of Part 3 of the Clean Air Act 1993 under                              section 20(6) of that Act are specified in S.I. 2013/2111.                           

3

S.I. 2013/2112.
MISSION HOSPITALS, INC., Petitioner and North Carolina Radiation Therapy Management Services, Inc., d/b/a 21st Century Oncology, Petitioner-Intervenor v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, DIVISION OF FACILITY SERVICES, CERTIFICATE OF NEED SECTION, Respondent and Asheville Hematology and Oncology Associates, PA, Respondent-Intervenor.

No. 498P06-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 3, 2008.

Robert V. Bode, S. Todd Hemphill, Diana Evans Ricketts, Raleigh, Matthew A. Fisher, for Asheville Hematology.

June S. Ferrell, Assistant Attorney General, For DHR.

Susan H. Hargrove, Sean A. Timmons, Courtney H. Mischen, Raleigh, for NC Radiation Therapy.

Maureen D. Murray, Allyson Jones Labbon, Terrill Johnson Harris, Greensboro, for Mission Hospitals.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Petitioner & Petitioner Intervenors on the 29th day of August 2008 for Writ of Supersedeas of the judgment of the 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 3rd day of September 2008."

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Petitioner & Petitioner Intervenors on the *46529th day of August 2008 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 3rd day of September 2008."

MARTIN, J., recused.
#### Timothy Riddy, Respondent, v HSBC USA, Inc., et al., Defendants, and Elizabeth Alers et al., Appellants.

[799 NYS2d 741]

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for fraud and negligent misrepresentation, the defendants Elizabeth Alers and Century 21, doing business as H.E Greenfield Real Estate, appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (F. *466Rivera, J.), dated August 6, 2004, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the amended complaint is dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellants, and the action against the remaining defendants is severed.

The defendants Elizabeth Alers and Century 21, doing business as H.E Greenfield Real Estate (hereafter HP Greenfield) demonstrated their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the fraud and negligent misrepresentation causes of action asserted against them *(see Frith v Affordable Homes of Am.,*253 AD2d 536 [1998]; *Platzman v Morris,*283 AD2d 561 [2001]; *see also Banque Nationale de Paris v 1567 Broadway Ownership Assoc.,*214 AD2d 359 [1995]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Moreover, the Supreme Court should have dismissed the negligence cause of action asserted against HP Greenfield due to the lack of any duty owed by that defendant to the plaintiff *(see Chambers v Executive Mtge. Corp.,*229 AD2d 416, 417 [1996]).

Further, while CPLR 3212 (f) permits an opposing party to obtain discovery under certain circumstances *(see Urcan v Cocarelli,*234 AD2d 537 [1996]), “it should not be resorted to where, as here, there has been a failure to demonstrate that the discovery sought would produce relevant evidence to support the plaintiffs allegations” *(Frith v Affordable Homes of Am., supra*at 537; *see Greenberg v McLaughlin,*242 AD2d 603, 604 [1997]). Schmidt, J.P., Santucci, Luciano and Spolzino, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         226,656
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  123,308
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               579,767
<PP&E>                                      13,683,819
<DEPRECIATION>                               (352,259)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              14,261,291
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          447,208
<BONDS>                                      6,025,405
<COMMON>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    615,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,173,678
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                14,261,291
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,679,699
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               980,529
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             338,611
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            360,559
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (7,506)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   353,053
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    $1.25
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    $1.24
        

</TABLE>
STATE v. BRILL.

No. COA07-1143.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed May 20, 2008.

Certification Date June 9, 2008.

Appeal from Alamance (06CRS52268, 07CRS2887).

Cases reported without published opinion. Affirmed.