alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Council Decision of 28 January 2014 on the conclusion of the revised Memorandum of Understanding with the United States of            America Regarding the Importation of Beef from Animals Not Treated with Certain Growth-Promoting Hormones and Increased Duties            Applied by the United States to Certain Products of the European Union (2014/44/EU)         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Council Decision

# of 28 January 2014

# on the conclusion of the revised Memorandum of Understanding with the United States of America Regarding the Importation of                        Beef from Animals Not Treated with Certain Growth-Promoting Hormones and Increased Duties Applied by the United States to                        Certain Products of the European Union                     

# (2014/44/EU)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article                           207(4), in conjunction with Article 218(6)(a)(v) thereof,                        

Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,

Having regard to the consent of the European Parliament,

Whereas:

(1)In accordance with Council Decision 2013/523/EU(1), the revised Memorandum of Understanding with the United States of America Regarding the Importation of Beef from Animals                              Not Treated with Certain Growth-Promoting Hormones and Increased Duties Applied by the United States to Certain Products of                              the European Union (the ‘revised MoU’) was signed on 21 October 2013, subject to its conclusion at a later date.

(2)The revised MoU should be approved,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

# Article 1U.K.

The revised Memorandum of Understanding with the United States of America Regarding the Importation of Beef from Animals Not                     Treated with Certain Growth-Promoting Hormones and Increased Duties Applied by the United States to Certain Products of the                     European Union is hereby approved on behalf of the Union.                  

The text of the revised MoU is attached to this Decision.

# Article 2U.K.

This Decision shall enter into force on the dayof its adoption.

Done at Brussels, 28 January 2014.

*For the Council*                            

*The President*                            

G. Stournaras                            

1

Council Decision 2013/523/EU of 18 October 2013 on the signing, on behalf of the European Union, of the revised Memorandum                              of Understanding with the United States of America Regarding the Importation of Beef from Animals Not Treated with Certain                              Growth-Promoting Hormones and Increased Duties Applied by the United States to Certain Products of the European Union (OJ L 282, 24.10.2013, p. 35).
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6696

JOSEPH SLEDGE, JR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

DEAN WALKER,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief

District Judge. (CA-98-243-5-BO)

Submitted: September 10, 1998 Decided: September 24, 1998

Before MURNAGHAN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joseph Sledge, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court’s order denying relief on

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

1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion

and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Sledge v. Walker, No. CA-98-243-5-BO (E.D.N.C. Apr. 2,

1998). 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
Document Headings

                    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 the Treasury

# DATES:

Written comments should be received on or before October 6, 2005 to be assured of consideration. 

## Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) 

*OMB Number:*                     1513-0092.                 

*Type of Review:*                     Extension.                 

*Title:*                     Marks on Wine Containers.                 

*Description:*                     TTB requires that wine or wine premises be identified by statements of information on labels or contained in marks. TTB uses this information to validate the receipts of excise tax revenue by the Federal government. Consumers are provided with adequate identifying information.                 

*Respondents:*                     Business or other for-profit.                 

*Estimated Total Burden Hours:*                     1 hour.                 

*Clearance Officer:*                     Frank Foote, (202) 927-9347, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Room 200 East, 1310 G. Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005.                 

*OMB Reviewer:*                     Alexander T. Hunt, (202) 395-7316, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.                 

Michael A. Robinson, 

Treasury PRA Clearance Officer. 

[FR Doc. 05-17566 Filed 9-2-05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810-31-P
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3566 

To prohibit the Secretary of Labor from issuing, administering, or enforcing 

any rule, regulation, or requirement derived from the proposal submitted 

to the Office of Management and Budget entitled ‘‘Requirements for 

DOL Agencies’ Assessment of Occupational Health Risks’’ (RIN: 1290– 

AA23). 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 24 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 17), 2008 

Mrs. MURRAY (for herself, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. OBAMA, Mr. BROWN, and Mr. 

MENENDEZ) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To prohibit the Secretary of Labor from issuing, administering, or enforcing any rule, regulation, or requirement 

derived from the proposal submitted to the Office of 

Management and Budget entitled ‘‘Requirements for 

DOL Agencies’ Assessment of Occupational Health 

Risks’’ (RIN: 1290–AA23). 

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

3 SECTION 1. PROHIBITION AGAINST CERTAIN RULES. 

4 The Secretary of Labor shall not issue, administer, 

5 or enforce any rule, regulation, or requirement derived 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
2 

•S 3566 IS

1 from the proposal submitted to the Office of Management 

2 and Budget entitled ‘‘Requirements for DOL Agencies’ 

3 Assessment of Occupational Health Risks’’ (RIN: 1290– 

4 AA23). 

Æ 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
CRAWFORD v. WATLINGTON.

No. COA07-1352.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed May 6, 2008.

Certification Date May 27, 2008.

Appeal from Wake (98CVS1992).

Case reported without published opinion. Dismissed.
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. 1350)



In connection with the Quarterly Report of
Wells Real Estate Fund IX, L.P. (the Registrant) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), the undersigned, Leo F. Wells, III, Chief
Executive Officer of the corporate general partner of one of the General Partners of the Registrant, and Douglas P. Williams, Chief Financial Officer of the corporate general partner of one of the General Partners of the Registrant, hereby certify,
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), that, to the best of our knowledge and belief:



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



|                                                           
|-----------------------------------------------------------
|/s/    LEO F. WELLS, III                                   
|Leo F. Wells, III Chief Executive
Officer November 12, 2004





|                                                             
|-------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/    DOUGLAS P. WILLIAMS                                   
|Douglas P. Williams Chief Financial
Officer November 12, 2004
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3597 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3597

To provide that funds allocated for community food projects for fiscal 
       year 2008 shall remain available until September 30, 2009.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

           September 25 (legislative day, September 17), 2008

    Mr. Harkin introduced the following bill; which was read twice, 
              considered, read the third time, and passed

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide that funds allocated for community food projects for fiscal 
       year 2008 shall remain available until September 30, 2009.

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

SECTION 1. COMMUNITY FOOD PROJECTS.

    (a) Technical Correction.--Section 4406(a)(7) of the Food, 
Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-234; 122 Stat. 
1902) is amended by striking ``Food and Nutrition Act of 2008'' and 
inserting ``Food Stamp Act of 1977''.
    (b) Allocation of Funds.--Funds allocated under section 25(b) of 
the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2034(b)) for fiscal year 2008 
shall remain available until September 30, 2009, to fund proposals 
solicited in fiscal year 2008.
                                 <all>
```
STATE of North Carolina v. Dwight Eugene SLOAN and Kolanda Kay Wooten.

No. 24A07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 12, 2007.

Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, ___ N.C.App. ___, 638 S.E.2d 36 (2006), finding no error in judgments entered 19 April 2005 by Judge John W. Smith in Superior Court, Wayne County. Heard in the Supreme Court 13 September 2007.

Roy Cooper, Attorney General, by Charles E. Reece, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Richard B. Glazier, Fayetteville, for defendant-appellant Wooten.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

Justice TIMMONS-GOODSON did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.
STATE v. Garland Edward PITTMAN.

No. 135P02-3.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 30, 2005.

Christopher W. Brooks, Assistant Attorney General, Ronald L. Moore, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*287The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 21st day of June 2005 by Defendant for "Notice of Appeal":

"Motion Dismissed ex mero motu by order of the Court in conference this the 30th day of June 2005."
# Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 December 2014 appointing the European Data Protection Supervisor            and the Assistant Supervisor (2014/886/EU)         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council

# of 4 December 2014

# appointing the European Data Protection Supervisor and the Assistant Supervisor

# (2014/886/EU)

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

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

Having regard to Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection                           of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement                           of such data(1), and in particular Article 42(1) thereof,                        

Having regard to the proposal of a list of candidates drawn up by the European Commission on 16 September 2014, in accordance                           with Article 42(1) of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001, following a public call for candidates, with a view to the appointment of                           the European Data Protection Supervisor and the Assistant Supervisor,                        

Whereas:

(1)The term of office of the European Data Protection Supervisor and the Assistant Supervisor came to an end on 16 January 2014.                              However, in accordance with Article 42(6) of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001, the European Data Protection Supervisor and the Assistant                              Supervisor remain in office until they are replaced.

(2)The European Data Protection Supervisor and the Assistant Supervisor are to be appointed by common accord between the European                              Parliament and the Council, for a period of five years from 4 December 2014,

HAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

# Article 1U.K.

The following are appointed for the period from 4 December 2014 to 5 December 2019:
          -  European Data Protection Supervisor: Mr Giovanni BUTTARELLI, 
          -  Assistant Supervisor: Mr Wojciech Rafał WIEWIÓROWSKI. 

# Article 2U.K.

This Decision shall enter into force on 4 December 2014.

Done at Brussels, 4 December 2014.

*For the European Parliament*                            

*The President*                            

M. Schulz                            

*For the Council*                            

*The President*                            

S. Gozi                            

1

OJ L 8, 12.1.2001, p. 1.
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1085/2014Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1085/2014 of 15 October 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 1085/2014                     

# of 15 October 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, 15 October 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.
Exhibit








Exhibit 10.02


Amendment Two to the Under Armour, Inc. 2006 Non-Employee Director Deferred Stock Unit Plan


WHEREAS, the Company has established the Under Armour, Inc. 2006 Non-Employee Director Deferred Stock Unit Plan, effective May 31, 2006 (the “DSU Plan”); 
    
WHEREAS, the Board has the authority under Section 5.3 of the DSU Plan to amend the DSU Plan; and
 
WHEREAS, the Board has approved amending the DSU Plan to permit DSUs to be distributed in the form of shares of the Company’s Class A common stock, par value $0.0003 1/3 per share, and/or Class C common stock, par value $0.0003 1/3 per share;


NOW, THEREFORE, the DSU Plan is hereby amended as follows effective April 7, 2016:


1.By amending Section 4.1 to read as follows:


		
	“4.1
	Form of Settlement.  DSUs under this Plan shall be distributed in the form of whole shares of Company common stock, in an amount equivalent to that credited to the Plan under Section 3, with fractional shares paid in cash.” 




Except as hereinabove amended and modified, the DSU Plan shall remain in full force and effect.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED MAY 1, 2024

NO. 03-23-00222-CV

Zenobia Joseph, Appellant

v.

Hilltop Residential Bristol Heights, Appellee

APPEAL FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES BAKER, TRIANA, AND KELLY

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION -- OPINION BY JUSTICE BAKER

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the trial court on April 4, 2023. Having reviewed 

the record, the Court holds that appellant has not prosecuted her appeal and did not comply 

with a notice from the Clerk of this Court. Therefore, the Court dismisses the appeal for want 

of prosecution. Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs 

is made.
Exhibit 99.2 (b)
KPMG Peat Marwick LLP
        Center Tower
        650 Town Center Drive
        Costa Mesa, CA  92626



INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANT'S REPORT

                                
A.   The Board of Directors
Option One Mortgage Corporation:

We have examined management's assertion about Option One Mortgage
Corporation's (the Company) compliance with the minimum servicing
standards identified in the Mortgage Bankers Association of
America's Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers
(USAP) as of and for the year ended December 31, 1996.
Management is responsible for the Company's compliance with those
minimum servicing standards.  Our responsibility is to express an
opinion on management's assertion about the Company's compliance
based on our examination.

Our examination was made in accordance with standards established
by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and,
accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about
the Company's compliance with the minimum servicing standards and
performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in
the circumstances.  We believe that our examination provides a
reasonable basis for our opinion.  Our examination does not
provide a legal determination on the Company's compliance with
the minimum servicing standards.

In our opinion, management's assertion that Option One Mortgage
Corporation complied with the aforementioned minimum servicing
standards as of and for the year ended December 31, 1996 is
fairly stated, in all material respects.


                              \s\KPMG Peat Marwick LLP


February 18, 1997
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-31285 Summary Calendar

HILTON JOSEPH WRIGHT, Petitioner-Appellant,

versus RICHARD P. IEYOUB, Attorney General, State of Louisiana; BURL CAIN, Acting Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary, Respondents-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 95-CV-1225-D

- - - - - - - - - - October 24, 1996 Before GARWOOD, JOLLY and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Hilton Wright, #97085, appeals the district court’s judgment denying his petition for habeas corpus relief. Wright contends that testimony at his state-court trial regarding an uncounseled lineup was erroneously admitted; that photographic identification procedures in his case were impermissibly suggestive; and that this court should consider an affidavit sworn by Simon Duplessis.No. 95-31285 - 2 - We have reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties and we find no reversible error. We affirm the disposition of Wright’s contention regarding the uncounseled lineup for essentially the reasons relied on by the district court. See Wright v. Ieyoub , No. 95-CV-1225-D (E.D. La. Nov. 22, 1995). Wright’s contention that the photographic lineup displays in the case were unduly suggestive is conclusional; his contention does not raise a constitutional issue. See Koch v. Puckett , 907 F.2d 524, 530 (5th Cir. 1990). Finally, Wright has not shown that Duplessis’s statement was not reasonably available to him during his state-court proceedings. See Townsend v. Sain , 372 U.S. 293, 317 (1963).
AFFIRMED.