alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                           SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY

                                                       JURISDICTION OF
                 SUBSIDIARIES                           INCORPORATION                          DOING BUSINESS AS
                 ------------                           -------------                          -----------------
<S>                                                    <C>                             <C>
1.       Sweet Factory Group, Inc.                     Delaware                        Sweet Factory Group, Inc.
2.       Sweet Factory, Inc.                           Delaware                        Sweet Factory, Inc.
3.       SF Properties, Inc.                           Delaware                        SF Properties, Inc.
4.       SF Candy Company                              Delaware                        SF Candy Company
5.       Archibald Candy (Canada) Corporation           Canada                         Archibald Candy (Canada) Corporation
6.       Mrs. Snyders Home Made Candies, Inc.          Illinois                        Mrs. Snyders Home Made Candies, Inc.
7.       Fannie May Candy Company, Inc.                Delaware                        Fannie May Candy Company, Inc.
8.       Grandmother's Candy Shops, Inc.               Illinois                        Grandmother's Candy Shops, Inc.
9.       Archibald Home Made Candies, Inc.             Illinois                        Archibald Home Made Candies, Inc.
10.      Archibald Box Corporation                     Illinois                        Archibald Box Corporation
</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 171 (Tuesday, September 6, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53028-53029]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-17567]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

MEDICARE PAYMENT ADVISORY COMMISSION


Commission Meeting

August 30, 2005.
AGENCY: Medicare Payment Advisory Commission.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Commission will hold its next public meeting on Thursday, 
September 8, 2005, and Friday, September 9, 2005, at the Ronald Reagan 
Building, International Trade Center, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC. The meeting is tentatively scheduled to begin at 11 
a.m. on September 8, and at 9:15 a.m. on September 9.

[[Page 53029]]

    Topics for discussion include findings on two congressionally 
mandated studies: home health margins, and payments for oncology drugs 
and administration services in the Medicare system. The Commission will 
also discuss issues related to the Medicare wage index, outpatient 
therapy, valuing services in the physician fee schedule, and physician 
resource use. The Commission will also host a panel on quality measures 
in managed care organizations.
    Agendas will be e-mailed approximately one week prior to the 
meeting. The final agenda will be available on the Commission's Web 
site (http://www.medpac.gov).
    This will be the last notice placed in the Federal Register by the 
Commission. We will continue to e-mail meeting agendas, which you can 
sign up to receive at http://www.medpac.gov. They will also be posted 
on our Web site. In addition, we will now e-mail a meeting notice two 
weeks prior to the meeting date. If you have any comments on this 
action, please contact Annissa McDonald at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#30515d53545f5e515c54705d55544051531e575f46"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="abcac6c8cfc4c5cac7cfebc6cecfdbcac885ccc4dd">[email protected]</span></a> or 
(202) 220-3700.

ADDRESSES: MedPAC's address is: 601 New Jersey Avenue, NW., Suite 9000, 
Washington, DC 20001. The telephone number is (202) 220-3700.

Mark E. Miller,
Executive Director.
[FR Doc. 05-17567 Filed 9-2-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-BW-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
STATE of North Carolina v. Rodney Rashawn GIBBS.

No. 504P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 10, 2008.

Rodney R. Gibbs, Pro Se.

Lauren M. Clemmons, Assistant Attorney General, Seth Edwards, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 10th 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 10th day of April 2008."

HUDSON, J., recused.
##### 



Exhibit 10.2
 COLLATERALIZED BOND SURETY PROGRAM
REGISTERED PLEDGE AND MASTER SECURITY AGREEMENT
  WITNESSETH :
 WHEREAS
 WHEREAS
 WHEREAS
 WHEREAS
 WHEREAS
 NOW, THEREFORE
 Indemnity Agreements
 Pledge of Collateral
 -1-




---



##### 



Holding of Collateral and Rights
 Additions to Collateral
  Representations and Warranties
    -2-




---



##### 



Further Assurances
 Name in Which Collateral Held
 Voting Rights; Dividends; Etc
        -3-




---



##### 



Secured Party Appointed Attorney-in-Fact
 Secured Party May Perform
 Events of Default
          Remedies
  -4-




---



##### 



Expenses
 Security Interest Absolute
    Amendments, Etc
 No Waiver, Cumulative Remedies
 -5-




---



##### 



Severability
 Interpretation
 Jurisdiction
 Acceptance
 Governing Law
 Notices
 Pledgor: (Name and Address)
    
    Secured Party:Apollo Group, Inc.
    
    Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America4025 S. Riverpoint Parkway
    
    One Tower Square, Bond  2SHS2Phoenix, AZ 85040
    
    Hartford, CT 06183Taxpayer ID# 86-0419443
    
    Collateral Processing, National ResourcesH.O. Bond, 2SHS2Attn: P. Robert Moya, Senior VP and Secretary
    
    Taxpayer ID# 06-0907370
 -6-




---



##### 



Signed:
    
    /s/ Brian E. Mueller
    
    
    
    Signed:
    
    /s/ P. Robert MoyaApollo Group, Inc.
    
    
    
    
    
    Apollo Group, Inc.By:
    
    Brian E. Mueller, President
    
    
    
    By:
    
    P. Robert Moya, Senior Vice Presidentand Secretary
   /s/ P. Robert MoyaSecretary
 SEALACCEPTED:
    
    
    
    TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY
OF AMERICABy:
    
    /s/ George W. ThompsonTitle:
    
    Sr. Vice PresidentDate:
    
    February 25, 2008
 -7-
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families
 *Title:*
                     Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) State Plan Guidance. *OMB No.:*
                     0970-0145. *Description:*
                     The State plan is a mandatory statement submitted to the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services by the State. It consists of an outline of how the State's TANF program will be administered and operated and certain required certifications by the State's Chief Executive Officer. Its submittal triggers the State's family assistance grant funding and it is used to provide the public with information about the program. If a State makes changes in its program, it must submit a State plan amendment. *Respondents:*
                     The 50 States, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. Annual Burden Estimates
Instrument
Number of 
                             respondents
Number of responses per respondent
Average 
                             burden hours per response
Total burden hoursTemporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) State Plan Guidance
54
0.5
33
891
 Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 891 Additional Information Copies of the proposed collection may be obtained by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Administration, Office of Information Services, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, SW., Washington, DC 20447, Attn: ACF Reports Clearance Officer. All requests should be identified by the title of the information collection. E-mail address: 
                    *grjohnson@acf.hhs.gov.* OMB Comment OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of information between 30 and 60 days after publication of this document in the 
                    **Federal Register**
                    . Therefore, a comment is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent directly to the following: Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project, Attn: Desk Officer for ACF, E-mail address: 
                    *Katherine_T._Astrich@omb.eop.gov.* Dated: August 23, 2005. Robert Sargis, Reports Clearance Officer.


[FR Doc. 05-17008  Filed 8-25-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4184-01-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000930735
<NAME> CROWN PACIFIC PARTNERS, L.P.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-1-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                          15,737
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   94,266
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,935
<INVENTORY>                                     43,470
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               160,946
<PP&E>                                          76,305
<DEPRECIATION>                                  28,135
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 851,260
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           71,270
<BONDS>                                        611,076
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       188,336
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   851,260
<SALES>                                        497,385
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               497,385
<CGS>                                          415,680
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  415,680
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                21,806
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,496
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              39,443
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 21,170
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             21,170
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    21,170
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.77
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.77
        

</TABLE>
STATE v. Charles N. CARSON.

No. 609P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 6, 2008.

LaToya B. Powell, Assistant Attorney General, Peter S. Gilchrist, III, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 20th day of December 2007 by Defendant to Appoint Counsel:

"Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference this the 6th day of March 2008."
STATE v. Santiago RODRIQUEZ.

No. 36P05-3.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 11, 2008.

Anne M. Middleton, Assistant Attorney General, Robert F. Johnson, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 30th day of May 2008 by Defendant to Amend Petition for Writ of Certiorari:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference this the 11th day of June 2008."
**EXHIBIT 32**

SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS

            Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned hereby certifies in his or her capacity as an officer of MSB Financial, Inc. (the "Registrant") that theQuarterly Report of the Registrant on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that theinformation contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financial condition of the Registrant at the end of such period and the results of operations of theRegistrant for such period

| Date: October 30, 2003 |  | /s/ Charles B. CookCharles B. CookPresident and Chief Executive Officer |
|------------------------|--|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Date: October 30, 2003 |  | /s/ Elaine R. CarbaryElaine R. CarbaryChief Financial Officer           |
# Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 81/2014Show full title

Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 81/2014 of 30 January 2014 implementing Regulation (EU) No 101/2011 concerning restrictive            measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Tunisia         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 81/2014                     

# of 30 January 2014

# implementing Regulation (EU) No 101/2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies                        in view of the situation in Tunisia                     

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EU) No 101/2011 of 4 February 2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain                           persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Tunisia(1), and in particular Article 12 thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)On 4 February 2011, the Council adopted Regulation (EU) No 101/2011.

(2)On the basis of a review of the list in Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 101/2011, the entries for 45 persons set out in that                              Annex should be replaced and new statements of reasons should be provided with regard to their designation.

(3)Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 101/2011 should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 101/2011 is replaced by the text appearing 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, 30 January 2014.

*For the Council*                            

*The President*                            

D. Kourkoulas                            

## ANNEXU.K.

### “ANNEX I

#### **List of natural and legal persons, entities or bodies referred to in Article 2(1)**

1

OJ L 31, 5.2.2011, p. 1.
# C_2023094EN.01005902.xml

| 13.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/59 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/59

---

Action brought on 30 January 2023 — Feed v EUIPO — The Feed.com (Feed.)

(Case T-26/23)

(2023/C 94/72)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Feed SA (Paris, France) (represented by: V. Bouchara and A. Maier, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: The Feed.com, Inc. (Broomfield, Colorado, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark Feed. — Application for registration No 18 096 681

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 November 2022 in Case R 552/2022-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and the company The Feed.com, Inc. to bear their own costs of the proceedings and to jointly pay those incurred by Feed SA, including the costs incurred for the proceedings before the EUIPO. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the company The Feed.com, Inc. to bear their own costs of the proceedings and to jointly pay those incurred by Feed SA, including the costs incurred for the proceedings before the EUIPO.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
STATE v. WELCH.

No. COA07-721.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed April 1, 2008.

Certification Date April 21, 2008.

Appeal from the Forsyth (06CRS52930, 06CRS52882).

Cases Reported Without Published Opinion. No error.
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

MICHAEL BEALS ELLIS,

Plaintiff,

v. Civil Action No. 1 6

- 729 (JEB) MARK J. LANGER, et al. ,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On March 19, 2014, Plaintiff Michael Ellis filed a pro se action in this courthouse against
the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service and others, claiming that the IRS falsifies the

tax records of citizens who do not file tax returns. See Ellis v. Commissioner , No. 14

- 471, ECF
No. 1. In a thorough Opinion, Judge Amy Berman Jackson dismissed the case on the grounds
that Ellis’s claims were barred by the Anti

- Injunction Act and his lack of standing. See 67 F.
Supp. 3d 325 (D.D.C. 2014). After his Rule 59 motion was denied, see ECF No. 33 (Dec. 3,
2014), he appealed, and the case was assigned No. 15

- 5035. See Minute Entry of Feb. 11, 2015.
The Court of Appeals issued a brief per curiam judgment on November 20, 2015, affirming
Judge Jackson’s decis ion. See ECF No. 38. The mandate issued on March 22, 2016. See ECF

No. 39.
Still unhappy with the outcome of that suit and wasting little time , Plaintiff has filed the

instant case , which is nothing more than a challenge to the Court of Appeals ’ decisio n. He
specifically states that “[t]his cause is designed to ensure the validity, meaning and import of the
‘Order’ dismissing Court of Appeals cause 15

- 5035,” although he misleadingly claims it is “not .2 . . an ‘appeal’ or attempt to amend it.” Compl. at 1. He asserts that he “has standing in this case
to seek mere review (not amendment, nor reversal) of the putative ‘Order’ to determine six issues

. . . .” Id. at 2. The issues all deal with the validity of the Court of Appeals’ judgment. See id. at

2

- 3.

This Court has an independent obligation to ensure that it does, in fact, have subject

matter jurisdiction to hear Plaintiff’s suit. See NetworkIP, LLC v. F.C.C. , 548 F.3d 116, 120

(D.C. Cir. 2008 ) ( “It is axiomatic that subject matte r jurisdiction may not be waived, and that
courts may raise the issue sua sponte

. ”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)

. Although this Court might wish to have the power to overturn rulings by the Court of Appeals
(particularly those reversing its decisions ), that is not the way our judicial system works. If Ellis
is displeased by an appellate decision, he must seek re hearing, rehearing en banc , or Supreme
Court review. This Court has no jurisdiction to offer him any relief.

The Court, accor dingly, will a n issue an Order dismissing the case without prejudice

.

/s/ James E. Boasberg JAMES E. BOASBERG United States District Judge Date: April 21 , 2016
August 23, 2012.

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

ERNEST EUGENE OVEAL, Appellant

NO. 14-12-00567-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________

This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. The record 

indicates that the appeal should be DISMISSED. The Court orders the appeal 

DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion.

We further order appellant pay all costs expended in the appeal.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
Exhibit
32





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 this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Ridgewood Electric Power
Trust IV (the “Trust”) for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2007, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
each of the undersigned officers of the Trust hereby certifies, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. (section) 1350, as adopted pursuant to (section) 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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; and





(2)              The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Trust.








/s/
      Randall D. HolmesName:
            Randall
      D. HolmesTitle:
            Chief
      Executive Officer
              (Principal
      Executive Officer)Dated:
            February
      20, 2008








/s/
      Jeffrey H. StrasbergName:
            Jeffrey
      H. StrasbergTitle:
            Executive
      Vice President and Chief Financial Officer(Principal
      Financial and Accounting Officer)Dated:
            February
      20, 2008
JOEY DAWSON,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NOS. 1D14-4630/1D14-4631

_____________________________/

Opinion filed August 16, 2016.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County.

Kevin J. Carroll, Judge.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Joel Arnold, Assistant Public Defender, 

Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Julian E. Markham, Assistant Attorney 

General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

ON REMAND FROM THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT

PER CURIAM.

Our original opinion in these cases reversed the trial court’s orders revoking 

appellant’s probation based on our finding that an officer’s testimony concerning 

the results of a drug test that she performed in her office was hearsay. See Dawson 

v. State, 177 So. 3d 658 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015). We noted our opinion was consistent 
2

with Queior v. State, 157 So. 3d 370 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (Quieor I). In State v. 

Queior, 191 So. 3d 388 (Fla. 2016) (Queior II), the Florida Supreme Court quashed 

Queior I, and also quashed our opinion in this case and remanded for 

reconsideration in light of Queior II. 

Based on Queior II, we find the officer’s testimony concerning the results of 

the drug test was not hearsay. As such, we affirm appellant’s judgments and 

sentences. 

AFFIRMED. 

WOLF, WETHERELL, and BILBREY, JJ., CONCUR.