alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 14.(A). 2







Kost Forer and Gabbay
Certified Public Accountants
2 Krememetski St.
Tel-Aviv 67899

Gentlemen,

                Re: ALBAHEALTH LLC (hereinafter - "the Company")

In connection with our examination of the financial statements of the Company
for the year ended December 31, 2002, we wish to advise you:

1.   We are aware that the financial statements of the Company which we have
     examined will be included in the consolidated financial statements of
     TEFRON LTD and our reports with respect to the financial statements of the
     Company will be relied upon by you.

2.   We consent to the inclusion of our report relating to our examination of
     the financial statements of the Company covering the balance sheets at
     December 31, 2002 and statements of income, cash flows and changes in
     shareholders' equity for the year in the period ended December 31, 2002, in
     the annual report of TEFRON LTD on Form 20 F, which is to be filed with the
     U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (U.S. SEC).

3.   We are independent with respect to all entities in the TEFRON LTD group,
     under the rules of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants
     and the Securities Act of 1933.

4.   We are familiar with generally accepted accounting principles in the United
     States and the financial statements of the above Company have been prepared
     in accordance with such principles.

5.   We are familiar with generally accepted auditing standards (U.S. GAAS)
     promulgated by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, and
     our examination with respect to the financial statements of the Company was
     conducted with U.S. GAAS.

6.   We are familiar with Regulation S-X and other published accounting rules
     and regulations of the U.S. SEC and the financial statements of the Company
     are prepared in accordance with, and contain the necessary disclosures
     required by, such rules and regulations.

<PAGE>


7.   We are familiar with the provisions of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act
     and will report to you in writing any matter which we encountered during
     the course of our examination, which we believe should be brought to the
     attention of TEFRON LTD's senior management.

8.   We have, as part of our examination of the Company, incorporated procedures
     relating to transactions between related parties and the financial
     statements disclose all material transactions between related parties as
     per SAS 45 and FAS No. 57 and S-X Art. 4 Rule 4.08(1).

Sincerely,


/s/ McGladrey & Pullen, LLP
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1288/2014Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1288/2014 of 3 December 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 1288/2014                     

# of 3 December 2014

# establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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

Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing                           a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79,                           (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007(1),                        

Having regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application                           of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors(2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations,                              the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products                              and periods stipulated in Annex XVI, Part A thereto.

(2)The standard import value is calculated each working day, in accordance with Article 136(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU)                              No 543/2011, taking into account variable daily data. Therefore this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its                              publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

The standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to                     this Regulation.                  

# Article 2U.K.

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*.                  

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 3 December 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.
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1200/2014Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1200/2014 of 6 November 2014 establishing the standard import values for determining            the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1200/2014                     

# of 6 November 2014

# establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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

Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing                           a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79,                           (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007(1),                        

Having regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application                           of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors(2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations,                              the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products                              and periods stipulated in Annex XVI, Part A thereto.

(2)The standard import value is calculated each working day, in accordance with Article 136(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU)                              No 543/2011, taking into account variable daily data. Therefore this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its                              publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

The standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to                     this Regulation.                  

# Article 2U.K.

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*.                  

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 6 November 2014.

*For the Commission,*                            

*On behalf of the President,*                            

Jerzy Plewa                            

*Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development*                            

## ANNEXU.K.Standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

1

OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 671.                           

2

OJ L 157, 15.6.2011, p. 1.
STATE v. GONZALEZ.

No. COA06-1090.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed October 2, 2007.

Certification Date October 22, 2007.

Appeal from Alamance (05CRS50678).

Case Reported Without Published Opinion. No error.
# C_2023121EN.01001401.xml

| 3.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 121/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 121/14

---

Action brought on 17 February 2023 — Google v EUIPO — EPay (GPAY)

(Case T-78/23)

(2023/C 121/19)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Google LLC (Mountain View, California, United States) (represented by: C. Schmitt and M. Kinkeldey, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: EPay AD (Sofia, Bulgaria)

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 word mark GPAY — Application for registration No 18 138 507

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 November 2022 in Case R 1761/2021-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and, the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal if it joins as intervener, to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and, the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal if it joins as intervener, to pay the costs of the proceedings.

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.

---
EXHIBIT 32.2


                            SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION
                           of Chief Financial Officer


I, Alvin A. Hirsch, the Chief Financial Officer of Mile Marker International,
Inc. (the "Company"), have executed this certification in connection with the
filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the Company's Quarterly
Report on Form 10- QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2006 (the "Report").

The undersigned hereby certifies 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.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 3rd
day of November, 2006.


/s/ Alvin A. Hirsch
-----------------------
     Alvin A. Hirsch
Chief Financial Officer
SEMON v. DOZIER.

No. COA07-1460.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed June 3, 2008.

Certification Date June 23, 2008.

Appeal from Buncombe (04CVS364).

Case Reported Without Published Opinion. Affirmed.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NOs. PD–1678–11, PD–1679–11

JAMES ALLEN SULLIVAN, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

ON APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

FROM THE ELEVENTH COURT OF APPEALS

BROWN COUNTY

MEYERS, J., filed a dissenting opinion.

DISSENTING OPINION

We granted Appellant’s ground for review in this case, which asked, “Did the

court of appeals correctly modify the judgment of the trial court by removing only the

portion of special findings that improperly cumulated sentences?” The majority

determines that the court of appeals did not correctly modify the judgment of the trial

court because under the court of appeals’s revised order, the sentence for the count

involving the 17-year-old victim still runs consecutive to the sentences for the counts
Sullivan dissent–Page 2

involving one of the other victims. The majority then decides to reform the cumulation

order, deleting the sentence for the count involving the 17-year-old victim and stacking

the sentences of the two other victims. The majority says:

We conclude here that only part of the trial judge’s

cumulation order is illegal—the inclusion of the sentence for

the count involving A.S. in the sequence of stacked sentences.

If we had any doubt about what the trial judge intended to do,

we would remand these cases to him to reform the cumulation

order. But it is clear from the oral pronouncement what his

intent was. Therefore, in conformity with the trial judge’s oral

pronouncement and with the law, we reform the cumulation

order to delete the sentence for the count involving A.S. from

the sequence of stacked sentences and to stack the sentence

for the counts involving N.P. upon the sentence for the count

involving C.C.

Maj. Op. at *8.

As far as I can tell, we have no authority to reform the trial court’s sequence of

stacking, and we have not been asked to do so. I would hold that the court of appeals’s

modification of the trial court’s judgment was incorrect and would remand the case to the

trial court to permit the trial judge to correct the cumulation order. Therefore, I

respectfully dissent.

Meyers, J.

Filed: January 9, 2013

Publish
# Commission Implementing Decision of 14 August 2014 on the compliance of European standards EN 16433:2014 and EN 16434:2014            and of certain clauses of European standard EN 13120:2009+A1:2014 for internal blinds with the general safety requirement            of Directive 2001/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and publication of the references of those standards            in the Official Journal of the European Union (Text with EEA relevance) (2014/531/EU) (repealed)         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Decision

# of 14 August 2014

# on the compliance of European standards EN 16433:2014 and EN 16434:2014 and of certain clauses of European standard EN 13120:2009+A1:2014                        for internal blinds with the general safety requirement of Directive 2001/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council                        and publication of the references of those standards in the *Official Journal of the European Union*

# (Text with EEA relevance)

# (2014/531/EU) (repealed)

F1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                        

Textual Amendments

F1Repealed by Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/1698 of 9 October 2019 on European standards for products drafted in support of                                 Directive 2001/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on general product safety (Text with EEA relevance).
STATE of North Carolina v. Roosevelt MACKEY, Jr.

No. 431P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 9, 2008.

Roosevelt Mackey, Jr., Pro Se.

Chris Z. Sinha, Assistant Attorney General, Clark Everett, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 10th day of September 2008 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Pitt County, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court of that County:

"Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th day of October 2008."
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 755/2014Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 755/2014 of 10 July 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 755/2014                     

# of 10 July 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, 10 July 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.
RADCLIFF v. ORDERS DISTRIBUTING CO., INC.

No. COA07-1041.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed June 17, 2008.

Certification Date July 7, 2008.

Appeal from Guilford (06CVS7834).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3592 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3592

To designate 4 counties in the State of New York as high-intensity drug 
trafficking areas, and to authorize funding for drug control activities 
                            in those areas.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

           September 25 (legislative day, September 17), 2008

  Mr. Schumer (for himself and Mrs. Clinton) introduced the following 
    bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the 
                               Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To designate 4 counties in the State of New York as high-intensity drug 
trafficking areas, and to authorize funding for drug control activities 
                            in those areas.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``New York/New Jersey High-Intensity 
Drug Trafficking Area Expansion Act of 2008''.

SEC. 2. DESIGNATION OF HIGH-INTENSITY DRUG TRAFFICKING AREAS IN NEW 
              YORK.

    The counties of Clinton, Franklin, Jefferson, and St. Lawrence in 
the State of New York are designated as high-intensity drug trafficking 
areas and shall be part of the New York/New Jersey high-intensity drug 
trafficking area under the program administered by the Office of 
National Drug Control Policy.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

    There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are necessary 
for each of the fiscal years 2009 through 2014 to carry out drug 
control activities in the areas designated by this Act.
                                 <all>
```
PACIFIC MULCH, INC. v. SENTER.

No. COA07-1538.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed October 7, 2008.

Certification Date October 27, 2008.

Appeal from Vance (06CVS667).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
# The Biocidal Products (Fees and Charges) Regulations 2013 (revoked)

        - Previous
        - Next

E+W+S

Statutory Instruments

# 2013 No. 1507

Health And Safety

# The Biocidal Products (Fees and Charges) Regulations 2013 (revoked)F1

Made

18th June 2013

Laid before Parliament

27th June 2013

Coming into force

1st September 2013

F1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                        

F1Regulations revoked (6.4.2015) by The Health and Safety and Nuclear (Fees) Regulations 2015 (S.I. 2015/363), **regs. 1(2)**, 26(1)(b) (with reg. 26(2))
STATE v. Arthur O. ARMSTRONG.

No. 544P06-3.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 6, 2007.

Patricia Duffy, Assistant Attorney General, Howard S. Boney, Jr., District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 10th day of May 2007 by Defendant for Permission to File Petition:

> "Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference this the 6th day of December 2007."