alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
STATE v. Ardie DeFronso NOLON.

No. 59P97-3.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 6, 2008.

Kathleen U. Baldwin, Assistant Attorney General, Scott Thomas, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 23rd day of July 2007 by Defendant for "Request For A Special Judge":

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference this the 6th day of March 2008."
HILL v. HILL.

No. 138P06-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 27, 2007.

Garford T. Hill, Pro Se, Cindy Hill Ford, Edward C. Hay, Jr., Asheville, for Garford T. & Jewel A. Hill.

"The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 30th day of April 2007 by Plaintiff for Sanctions and Notice Regarding the Dependency of Federal Bankruptcy Court Proceedings on Ruling in 138P06-2: Denied by order of the Court in conference this the 27th day of June 2007."
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-7788

KEITH D. MORAN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

J.R. HUNT, JR.,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., District

Judge. (CA-01-34-1)

Submitted: February 21, 2002 Decided: March 5, 2002

Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Keith D. Moran, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Keith D. Moran appeals the district court’s order dismissing

his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp.

2001) as untimely. We have reviewed the record and the district

court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate

judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny leave to

proceed in forma pauperis, deny a certificate of appealability, and

dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See

Moran v. Hunt, No. CA-01-34-1 (M.D.N.C. Sept. 5, 2001). 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.

DISMISSED
<PAGE>

                         RECKSON ASSOCIATES REALTY CORP.
                                  EXHIBIT 32.1
    CERTIFICATION OF SCOTT H. RECHLER, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, CHIEF EXECUTIVE
            OFFICER AND DIRECTOR OF RECKSON ASSOCIATES REALTY CORP.,
  PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE

I, Scott H. Rechler, Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Office and Director
of Reckson Associates Realty Corp. (the "Company"), certify pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

     1)   The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly
          period ended June 30, 2006 (the "Report") fully complies with the
          requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
          of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

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

Dated: August 8, 2006


                                        By /s/ Scott H. Rechler
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Scott H. Rechler,
                                           Chairman of the Board, Chief
                                           Executive Officer and Director

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Reckson Associates Realty Corp. and will be furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
SHEPHERD v. NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESSES.

No. COA07-27.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed January 15, 2008.

Certification Date February 4, 2008.

Appeal from NC Industrial Commission (I.C. 357500).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER>  1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                       1,472
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                       2,435
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                 0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 16,419
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             0
<LOANS>                                     87,376
<ALLOWANCE>                                    230
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             114,868
<DEPOSITS>                                  90,042
<SHORT-TERM>                                     0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          2,526
<LONG-TERM>                                  8,500
<COMMON>                                     1,220
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<OTHER-SE>                                  12,533
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             114,868
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              3,547
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              512
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               126
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             4,185
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           1,835
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,044
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        2,141
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   80
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                               0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              1,518
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,000
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   1,000
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                   602
<EPS-BASIC>                                  .54
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .52
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                3.50
<LOANS-NON>                                      0
<LOANS-PAST>                                     0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                 0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               194
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   44
<RECOVERIES>                                     0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              230
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           230
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                              0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          0


</TABLE>
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 47/2014Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 47/2014 of 13 January 2014 entering a name in the register of protected designations            of origin and protected geographical indications [Dithmarscher Kohl (PGI)]         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 47/2014                     

# of 13 January 2014

# entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Dithmarscher Kohl                        (PGI)]                     

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)Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Germany’s application to register the name ‘Dithmarscher Kohl’                              was published in the *Official Journal of the European Union* (2).

(2)As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name                              ‘Dithmarscher Kohl’ should therefore be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

The name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.

# 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, 13 January 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 1.6.****Fruit, vegetables and cereals, fresh or processed**U.K.

#### GERMANYU.K.

Dithmarscher Kohl (PGI)

1

OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.                           

2

OJ C 232, 10.8.2013, p. 21.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7142
In Re: JULIAN EDWARD ROCHESTER, Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-99-705-20AJ, CA-99-785-20AJ, CA-98-298-20AJ, CA-97-3924-20AJ, CA-98-146-21AJ) Submitted: November 18, 1999 Decided: November 24, 1999 Before WILKINS, HAMILTON, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Julian Edward Rochester, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Julian Edward Rochester filed this petition for a writ of mandamus requesting this court to direct a South Carolina state court to act on a pending post-conviction relief petition. Because we have no general power to compel action by state courts, we deny the petition. See Davis v. Lansing , 851 F.2d 72, 74 (2d Cir. 1988). We grant the motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dispense withoral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
# National Alcohol and Drug Addiction Recovery Month, 2005

The devastating effects of alcohol and drug addiction have destroyed the lives and families of countless Americans. During National Alcohol and Drug Addiction Recovery Month, we recognize the dangers of substance abuse and renew the hope of overcoming addiction for individuals across our Nation. This year's theme, “Join the Voices for Recovery: Healing Lives, Families and Communities,” encourages those striving to recover from this disease and recognizes the many families, support organizations, faith-based and community groups, and volunteers working to help overcome addiction.

Substance abuse leads to a cycle of addiction and despair that too often causes disease and death among young people. The Helping America's Youth initiative, led by First Lady Laura Bush, is promoting positive youth development and combating alcohol and drug addiction. This initiative is helping our children to make healthy choices and build lives of purpose. To aid citizens seeking treatment and recovery for substance abuse, my Administration also has provided $200 million over the past 2 years for the Access to Recovery program. My 2006 budget requests an additional $150 million for this program to further expand treatment choices. Directing resources to individuals allows them to choose a program that suits their needs and increases their chances of success. In addition, we have increased opportunities for communities and faith-based providers to aid those suffering from addiction.

I encourage all Americans to support individuals striving to overcome addiction and the groups that are helping to fight alcohol and drug addiction. By working together, we can continue to build a more compassionate society that transforms lives and provides health, hope, and healing to those who hurt.

                        NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim September 2005 as National Alcohol and Drug Addiction Recovery Month. I call upon the people of the United States to observe this month with appropriate programs and activities.                              ( print page 52282)    

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twenty-ninth day of August, in the year of our Lord two thousand five, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirtieth.

[FR Doc. 05-17573

Billing code 3195-01-P
Exhibit






Exhibit 10.iii.c.i


DESCRIPTION OF MODIFICATION TO MOSAIC MANAGEMENT INCENTIVE PROGRAM


On March 3, 2016, the Board of Directors of The Mosaic Company (the “Company”) authorized a change to the weighting of the safety incentive measures for executive officers for 2016 under the Company’s Management Incentive Plan.  The OSHA recordable injury frequency rate for employees and contractors now has a weighting of 2%, and the effectiveness of Mosaic's Environmental, Health and Safety management system, measured against specified target goals, now has a weighting of 3%. Previously, the two safety measures were weighted equally.
**CERTIFICATION      **

**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)**

| (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. |
|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                     |
|------------------------------------------|
| /s/                Lanny H. Michael      |
| Lanny                H. Michael          |
| *Chief                Financial Officer* |
| March                20, 2007            |
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 343/2014Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 343/2014 of 2 April 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 343/2014                     

# of 2 April 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 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, 2 April 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 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.                           

2

OJ L 157, 15.6.2011, p. 1.
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 June 30, 2009, 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:
President and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)Date:
August 11, 2009








/s/ Jeffrey H. StrasbergName:
Jeffrey H. StrasbergTitle:
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)Date:
August 11, 2009
Exhibit 10(53)
 SERVICES AND INDEMNITY AGREEMENT
 ,
     1. TERM
  2. APPOINTMENTS




---



##### 



3. UNDERWRITING AUTHORITY AND RELATED DUTIES
    4. CLAIMS AUTHORITY AND RELATED DUTIES




---



##### 



5. ACCOUNTING AUTHORITY AND RELATED DUTIES




---



##### 



6. REGULATORY COMPLIANCE AND RELATED DUTIES
     7. COMPENSATION
  8. INDEMNIFICATION




---



##### 



9. REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES OF COMPANY
  10. ARBITRATION




---



##### 



11. MODIFICATION
  12. BINDING EFFECT OF AGREEMENT
  13. TERMINATION
    14. CONTRIBUTION
  15. RESOLUTION OF CONFLICTING TERMS




---



##### 



16. SEVERABILITY
  17. HONORABLE UNDERTAKING
  IN WITNESS WHEREOF
 CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY
 By:Printed Name:Title:Date:
 WESTERN SURETY COMPANY
 By:Printed Name:Title:Date:
# C_2023127EN.01001801.xml

| 11.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 127/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 127/18

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 12 January 2023 — FH v Conseil national de l’ordre des médecins

(Case C-8/23, Conseil national de l’ordre des médecins)

(2023/C 127/21)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: FH

Defendant: Conseil national de l’ordre des médecins

Other parties to the proceedings: Ministère de la Santé et de la Prévention, Ministère de l'Économie, des Finances et de la Souveraineté industrielle et numérique

Question referred

May a doctor who is a national of one of the Member States of the European Union and who holds evidence of a formal qualification as a specialised doctor issued in a Member State as referred to in point 5.1.2 of Annex V to Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications, (1) rely, in another Member State, on the basis of that qualification alone, on the system for the automatic recognition of formal qualifications set out in Article 21 of that directive, even though he or she holds evidence of a formal qualification in basic medical training issued by a third State which has been recognised only by the Member State in which he or she obtained the diploma as a specialised doctor and which is not among those referred to in point 5.1.1 of Annex V to that directive, and Article 25(4) of the directive makes the issuance of evidence of a formal qualification as a specialised doctor contingent on possession of evidence of one of those formal qualifications in basic medical training?

---

(1)  OJ 2005 L 255, p. 22.

---
JULY 26,1998
(IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT SHARE AND PER SHARE DATA)
                                                               JULY 26,
                                                                 1998
PRIMARY AND FULLY DILUTED CALCULATION

           Net loss from continuing operations                   (1,867)      
                                                                 

           Extraordinary loss                                    (5,081)      
                                                                 
           Accretion of discount and dividends accrued on
                   mandatorily redeemable preferred stock        (5,346)      
                                                              --------------

           Net loss available to common shareholders                          
                                                                (12,294)
                                                              --------------

           Weighted average shares outstanding:
                   Common Stock                               11,071,073
                   Common Stock, Class A                      14,760,530
                                                              --------------

                                                              25,831,603
                                                              --------------

           Loss per common share (basic and fully diluted):

                   Net loss from continuing operations              (0.07)  
                                                                    
                   Extraordinary loss                               (0.20)    
                                                                    
                   Net loss available to common shareholders        (0.48)
STATE of North Carolina v. Sampson BRUNSON.

No. 623A06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 7, 2007.

Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 180 N.C.App. 188, 636 S.E.2d 202 (2006), finding no error in judgments entered 22 April 2005 by Judge Catherine C. Eagles in Superior Court, Guilford County. Heard in the Supreme Court 13 November 2007.

Roy Cooper, Attorney General, by Richard A. Graham, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Paul F. Herzog, Fayetteville, for defendant-appellant.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.