alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
STATE of North Carolina v. Torrance Terril JOHNSON.

No. 85P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 6, 2005.

Torrance T. Johnson, Pro Se.

Kathleen Y. Waylett, Assistant Attorney General, Howard S. Boney, Jr., District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 15th day of February 2008 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 6th day of March 2008."
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 297/2014Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 297/2014 of 20 March 2014 approving non-minor amendments to the specification for            a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Valençay (PDO)]         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 297/2014                     

# of 20 March 2014

# approving non-minor amendments to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin                        and protected geographical indications [Valençay (PDO)]                     

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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

Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality                           schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs(1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)By virtue of the first subparagraph of Article 53(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, the Commission has examined France’s                              application for the approval of amendments to the specification for the protected designation of origin ‘Valençay’, registered                              under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1437/2004(2) 

(2)Since the amendments in question are not minor within the meaning of Article 53(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, the Commission                              published the amendment application in the *Official Journal of the European Union* (3) as required by Article 50(2)(a) of that Regulation.

(3)As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the amendments                              to the specification should be approved,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

The amendments to the specification published in the *Official Journal of the European Union* regarding the name contained in the Annex to this Regulation are hereby approved.                  

# Article 2U.K.

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that 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, 20 March 2014.

*For the Commission, On behalf of the President*,                           

Dacian Cioloș                            

*Member of the Commission*                            

## ANNEXU.K.

Agricultural products intended for human consumption listed in Annex I to the Treaty:

### **Class 1.3.****Cheeses**U.K.

#### FRANCEU.K.

Valençay (PDO)

1

OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.                           

2

OJ L 265, 12.8.2004, p. 3.                           

3

OJ C 296, 12.10.2013, p. 4.
TEAGUE v. NCDOT, et al.

No. 281P06-5.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 11, 2008.

Tina Krasner, Assistant Attorney General, C. Colon Willoughby, Jr., District Attorney, for NCDOT.

*561The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 14th day of April 2008 by Plaintiff to Reconsider Writ of Certiorari from Wake Superior Court Prior to Determination There For Reasons of Judicial Misconduct:

"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference this the 11th day of June 2008."

EDMUNDS, J., recused.
STATE of North Carolina v. Jose Ivan Bracamontes CRUZ.

No. 47P07-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 26, 2008.

Jose Ivan B. Cruz, Pro Se.

Harriet F. Worley, Assistant Attorney General, Thomas J. Keith, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 17th day of April 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 26th day of August 2008."

HUDSON, J., recused.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                    5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information
extracted from Form 10-Q for the period ended
March 31, 2000 and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                        0000929697
<NAME>                       THE GENERAL CHEMICAL GROUP INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                 1,000

<S>                                      <C>
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                        DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                           JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                             MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  3-MOS
<CASH>                                        28,286
<SECURITIES>                                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 56,802
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (2,654)
<INVENTORY>                                   26,089
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             121,673
<PP&E>                                       325,673
<DEPRECIATION>                              (176,083)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               294,233
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         58,293
<BONDS>                                      150,845
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<COMMON>                                         186
<OTHER-SE>                                   (48,255)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 294,233
<SALES>                                       54,180
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              54,180
<CGS>                                         45,878
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 45,878
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             3,881
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (2,497)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (1,252)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (1,245)
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (1,245)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (.06)



</TABLE>
IN RE N.M.T.

No. COA08-465.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed September 16, 2008.

Certification Date October 6, 2008.

Appeal from Mecklenburg (06JA1028).

Case reported without published opinion. Reversed.
STATE of North Carolina v. Hamilton Junior COZART.

No. 508P98-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 23, 2007.

Hamilton J. Cozart, pro se.

Catherine F. Jordan, Assistant Attorney General, Susan Doyle, District Attorney, for State of NC.

Prior report: 131 N.C.App. 199, 505 S.E.2d 906.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by Defendant on the 17th day of July 2007 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30 (substantial constitutional question), the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the notice of appeal is

"Dismissed ex mero motu by order of the Court in conference, this the 23rd day of August 2007."

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 17th day of July 2007 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order 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 23rd day of August 2007."
# C_2023024EN.01006102.xml

| 23.1.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/61 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.1.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/61

---

Action brought on 15 November 2022 — AFG v Commission

(Case T-722/22)

(2023/C 24/85)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: AFG SA (Funchal, Portugal) (represented by: S. Estima Martins, F. Castro Guedes and L. Seifert Guincho, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul Articles 1, 4, 5 and 6 of Commission Decision C(2020) 8550 final of 4 December 2020 on aid scheme SA.21259 (2018/C) (ex 2018/NN) implemented by Portugal in favour of the Madeira Free Zone (MFZ) — Regime III, published in the Official Journal of the European Union, L 217 of 22 August 2022, page 49; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Articles 1, 4, 5 and 6 of Commission Decision C(2020) 8550 final of 4 December 2020 on aid scheme SA.21259 (2018/C) (ex 2018/NN) implemented by Portugal in favour of the Madeira Free Zone (MFZ) — Regime III, published in the Official Journal of the European Union, L 217 of 22 August 2022, page 49;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs in their entirety. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs in their entirety.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

First plea in law, alleging error of law in that the measure at issue does not constitute State aid, in so far as the Commission wrongly considered that that scheme constitutes a selective measure, and breach of the obligation to state reasons, enshrined in Article 296 TFEU, in respect of the analysis of the condition relating to selectivity.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Zona Franca da Madeira — Regime III aid scheme has been implemented in accordance with the Commission Decisions of 2007 and 2017 and with the rules laid down in Articles 107 and 108 TFEU.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the general principles of EU law, specifically the principles of legal certainty, protection of legitimate expectations, and proportionality.

---
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Vicente Anido, Jr., Ph.D., hereby certify pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that the Quarterly Report of ISTA Pharmaceuticals, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009 fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of
ISTA Pharmaceuticals, Inc.



|                     |  |                                      
|-------------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|Dated August 6, 2009 |  | /s/ Vicente Anido, Jr., Ph.D.        
|                     |  | Vicente Anido, Jr., Ph.D.            
|                     |  | President and Chief Executive Officer

This certification accompanies the Quarterly Report pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Active Power, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the
period ending December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, James A. Clishem, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: May 11, 2007



|                                                      
|------------------------------------------------------
|/s/    JAMES A.
CLISHEM                               
|James A. Clishem President and Chief Executive Officer
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 164/2014Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 164/2014 of 20 February 2014 amending Regulation (EC) No 1484/95 as regards representative            prices in the poultrymeat and egg sectors         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 164/2014                     

# of 20 February 2014

# amending Regulation (EC) No 1484/95 as regards representative prices in the poultrymeat and egg sectors

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) and in particular Article 183(b) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Commission Regulation (EC) No 1484/95(2) lays down detailed rules for implementing the system of additional import duties and fixes representative prices in the poultrymeat                              and egg sectors and for egg albumin.

(2)Regular monitoring of the data used to determine representative prices for poultrymeat and egg products and for egg albumin                              shows that the representative import prices for certain products should be amended to take account of variations in price                              according to origin.

(3)Regulation (EC) No 1484/95 should be amended accordingly.

(4)Given the need to ensure that this measure applies as soon as possible after the updated data have been made available, this                              Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1484/95 is replaced by the text set out 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, 20 February 2014.

*For the Commission, On behalf of the President*,                           

Jerzy Plewa                            

*Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development*                            

## ANNEXU.K.

### “‘ANNEX I

1

OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 671.                           

2

OJ L 145, 29.6.1995, p. 47.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          46,522
<SECURITIES>                                        99
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                48,992
<PP&E>                                           4,892
<DEPRECIATION>                                     681
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  53,972
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,537
<BONDS>                                          1,211
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           139
<OTHER-SE>                                    (45,928)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    46,067
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,047
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    9,887
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (7,094)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       100
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (7,194)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (7,194)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     3.97
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     3.97


</TABLE>
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14

- 50517 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v. JOSE DE LA CRUZ SAENZ

- ARANDA , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 4:14

- CR

- 30

- 1

Before DAVIS, JONES, and HIGGINSON , Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Jose De La Cruz Saenz

Aranda raises arguments that are foreclosed by United States v. Teran

- Salas , 767 F.3d 453, 458

- 62 (5th Cir. 2014) , cert. denied , 135 S. Ct. 1892 ( 2015) . In Teran

- Salas , we determined that th e appellant was not entitled to relief based merely on the existence of a theoretical possibility that the defendant could be convicted under Texas Health & Safety Code § 481.112(a) for conduct that

* 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 June 1 6 , 2015 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 14-50517 Document: 00513080225 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/16/2015No. 14

- 50517

2 would not qualify as a federal drug trafficking offense. See Teran

- Salas , 767 F.3d at 458. Saenz

- Aranda has not demonstrated “a realistic probability that Texas would prosecute under an ‘administering’ theory in a way that does not also constitute either ‘dispensing’ or ‘distributing’ under the federal sentenc ing guidelines.” Id. at 461

- 62. Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, the alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Case: 14-50517 Document: 00513080225 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/16/2015
EXHIBIT 31.2
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I, Emile Jordan certify that:
1.   I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of OraLabs Holding Corp.;

2.       Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual
report;

3.       Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

4.       The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Acts Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:
         a)       designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure
that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;
         b)       evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of
this annual report (the "Evaluation Date"); and
         c)       presented in this annual report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation
as of the Evaluation Date;

5.       The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit
committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent function):
         a)       all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of
internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and
         b)       any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management
or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
controls; and

6.       The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
annual report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls
or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent
to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date:  April 14, 2004                                    /s/ Emile Jordan
                                                         Chief Financial Officer