alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                       2,248,971
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                       4,409,949
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                          0
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                       3,638,789
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                         3,665,907
<LOANS>                                     98,433,182
<ALLOWANCE>                                    909,471
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             114,013,699
<DEPOSITS>                                  72,604,408
<SHORT-TERM>                                 6,000,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            696,059
<LONG-TERM>                                 16,685,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        12,987
<OTHER-SE>                                  18,015,245
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             114,013,699
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              7,895,000
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              254,651
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               385,997
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             8,535,648
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           2,686,082
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           3,920,193
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        4,615,455
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  229,781
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              3,228,229
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,346,829
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   1,346,827
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   839,523
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .69
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .69
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    8.28
<LOANS-NON>                                    275,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               751,123
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   85,828
<RECOVERIES>                                    14,176
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              909,471
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           909,471
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 597 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 597

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To extend the special postage stamp for breast cancer research for 4 
                                 years.

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

SECTION 1. 4-YEAR EXTENSION OF POSTAGE STAMP FOR BREAST CANCER 
              RESEARCH.

    Section 414(h) of title 39, United States Code, is amended by 
striking ``2007'' and inserting ``2011''.

            Passed the Senate November 14, 2007.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
110th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                 S. 597

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To extend the special postage stamp for breast cancer research for 4 
                                 years.
```
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1323/2013Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1323/2013 of 11 December 2013 establishing the standard import values for determining            the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1323/2013                     

# of 11 December 2013

# 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, 11 December 2013.

*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.
ex10-1.htm


Exhibit 10.1


 



PROMISSORY NOTE









 



	AMOUNT:  	DATE:















FOR VALUE RECEIVED, SYDYS CORPORATION ("Borrower”) hereby promises to pay to the order of _____________________ ("Lender") the principal sum of ________ _________________________.  Payment in full, plus accrued interest of three and one quarter (3.25%) percent shall be made in lawful money of the United States, at the principal address of Lender, or such other place as the holder of this Note may designate upon demand.







Borrower shall have the privilege without premium or penalty, at any time and from time to time, of prepaying this Note in whole or in part.







No partial prepayment shall postpone or interrupt the payment of the remaining principal balance, all of which shall continue to be due and payable at the time and the manner set forth above.







Borrower agrees that a default shall occur hereunder in the event that payment is not made upon demand and such default continues for a period of ten (10) days from the date of demand therefor.  After the expiration of such ten (10) day period interest shall accrue on the unpaid balance due hereunder at a rate of six (6%) percent, together with attorneys' fees for collection and payment of the same, which sums may be enforced and recovered by the entry of judgment on this.







Borrower (and all endorsers, sureties and guarantors) waives presentment for payment, demand, notice of demand, notice of nonpayment or dishonor, protest and notice of protest of this Note, and all other notices in connection with the delivery, acceptance, performance, default, or enforcement of the payment of this Note; liability hereunder shall be unconditional and shall not be affected in any manner by any indulgence, extension of time, renewal, waiver or modification granted or consented to by Lender.







Borrower shall pay the cost of any revenue, tax or other stamps now or hereafter required by law at any time to be affixed to this Note or any security documents executed in conjunction herewith, and if any taxes be imposed with respect to debts secured by any such security documents or with respect to notes evidencing debts so secured Borrower agrees to pay or to reimburse Lender upon demand the amount of such taxes.







The words "Lender" and "Borrower" whenever occurring herein shall be deemed and construed to include their respective successors and assigns of Lender and Borrower.







This instrument shall be construed according to and governed by the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.












IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Borrower has duly executed this Promissory Note under seal the day and year first above mentioned.







SYDYS CORPORATION







BY:__________________________________


       NAME:


       TITLE:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

JOSHUA STOKES,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 229 EAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 28th day of November, 2023, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
# C_2023321EN.01006101.xml

| 11.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 321/61 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 321/61

---

Action brought on 25 July 2023 — PlanetArt v EUIPO — Free (FreePrints)

(Case T-424/23)

(2023/C 321/68)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: PlanetArt LLC (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by: M. Schaffner, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Free (Paris, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark in colour Freeprints — Application No 18 084 906

Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 May 2023 in Case R 407/2022-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | reject opposition No B 3 101 722 which the Opposition Division of EUIPO upheld on 25 January 2022; |
| --- | --- |

—

reject opposition No B 3 101 722 which the Opposition Division of EUIPO upheld on 25 January 2022;

| — | accordingly, allow registration in respect of application No 18 084 906 for the EU trade mark FreePrints; |
| --- | --- |

—

accordingly, allow registration in respect of application No 18 084 906 for the EU trade mark FreePrints;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Court and before EUIPO (Board of Appeal and Opposition Division), including the expenses necessarily incurred by the applicant in the context of those sets of proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Court and before EUIPO (Board of Appeal and Opposition Division), including the expenses necessarily incurred by the applicant in the context of those sets of proceedings.

Plea in law relied on

| — | Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
**THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS**

**Post Office Box 12248**

**Austin, Texas 78711**

**(512) 463-1312**

March 09, 2012

Mr. John Andrew Cowan

Provost & Umphrey Law Firm, L.L.P.

P.O. Box 4905

Beaumont, TX 77704

Ms. Jacqueline M. Stroh

Law Office of Jacqueline M. Stroh, P.C.

10101 Reunion Place, Suite 600

San Antonio, TX 78216

RE:Case Number:  10-0970

Court of Appeals Number:  09-09-00362-CV

Trial Court Number:  A-050,478-C

Style:NICHOLAS TRAXLER

v.

ENTERGY GULF STATES, INC.

Dear Counsel:

Today the Supreme Court of Texas issued an opinion in the above-referenced cause.  You may obtain a copy of the opinion at: http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/recent.asp.  If you would like the opinion by email, please contact Claudia Jenks at claudia.jenks@txcourts.gov or call (512)463-1312 ext. 41367.  

Sincerely,

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

by Claudia Jenks, Chief Deputy Clerk

Enclosure

**Case No. 10-0970Page 1**
# CE2004084EN.01071501.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/715 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/715

---

(2004/C 84 E/0803)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0243/03

by Nirj Deva (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 February 2003)

Subject:   Kenya Westlands-St Austins road scheme

Subject:

Will the Commission ensure that it complies with its duty under Article 288 (ex 215) to make good any damage caused by its institutions or by its servants in the performance of their duties in the light of suggestions made by local people at the instigation of Lutz Salzmann, former Head of the EU Delegation in Kenya, in 1996?

Will the Commission fund the borehole that has been requested by the local community in the light of the destruction of the water table and the contamination of the general water supply brought about by contractors working for the EU?

Will it also consider supporting the creation of a health clinic in the Rung iri/Gitaru area to counteract the respiratory damage which affects local people and was caused by the contractors during construction work?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(14 March 2003)

(14 March 2003)

Please refer to decision by the European Ombudsman on complaint 983/29.10.96/ABU/KENYA/XD/BB against the Commission of 29 April 1999, in which the Ombudsman concluded that ‘on the basis of the European Ombudsman's enquiries into this complaint, there appears to have been no mal-administration by the European Commission, and the European Ombudsman has therefore decided to close the case’.

Consequently, it is not correct to say that the Commission or its servants caused any damage, destruction and contamination to the water supply, health, or the general environment affecting local people.

This not withstanding the Commission Delegation in Kenya has repeatedly advised and continues to advise the local community about the funding possibilities for community based projects through the Community Development Trust Fund (CDTF) programme, which is financed from the European Development Fund. The fund very successfully aims to help local communities to meet some of their priority needs (health, water, education, roads, income generating activities, etc). Furthermore, the Delegation facilitated contacts between the local community and CDTF and provided them with an outline proposal for a community water project in their areas prepared by a local engineering and development consultancy.

Unfortunately, the local community to date failed to introduce any application for project funding with CDTF.

---
STATE of North Carolina v. PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation, individually and as successor by merger to The American Tobacco Company, and Lorillard Tobacco Company.

No. 2P05-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

February 25, 2008.

Jim W. Phillips, Jr., Gregory G. Holland, Greensboro, Charles F. Marshall, III, Raleigh, Larry B. Sitton, Jonathan P. Heyl, Charlotte, for Philip Morris USA, et al.

Douglas F. Gansler, Attorney General of Maryland, Marlene Trestman, Special Assistant to the Attorney General, David S. Lapp, Craig A. Nielsen, Assistant Attorney Generals, Thomas W. Corbett, Attorney General of Pennsylvania, for State of NC.

Joel Ressler, Chief Deputy Attorney General, for States of Maryland and Pennsylvania.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendants on the 14th day of January 2008 in this matter for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 prior to, a determination by 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 25th day of February 2008."
# CE2004065EN.01006702.xml

| 13.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 65/67 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 65/67

---

(2004/C 65 E/075)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1219/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(2 April 2003)

Subject:   Use of funds under the Framework for action on sustainable urban development in the European Union by the municipality of Pistoia

Subject:

In September 2002, the monitoring committee of the Italian Ministry for Economic Affairs issued a report on the spending of EU funds.

The report reveals the alarming slowness and inefficiency with which EU funds are allocated to projects by some regional authorities.

The grave concerns about the inadequate use of European funds by local authorities have frequently been echoed by the Commission.

Bearing in mind that some local authorities, such as the municipality of Pistoia, urgently need to use European funds to promote sustainable urban development,

can the Commission state:

| 1. | whether the municipality of Pistoia has submitted projects for the Framework for action on sustainable urban development in the European Union? |
| --- | --- |

1.

whether the municipality of Pistoia has submitted projects for the Framework for action on sustainable urban development in the European Union?

| 2. | whether the municipality of Pistoia has secured funding for these projects? |
| --- | --- |

2.

whether the municipality of Pistoia has secured funding for these projects?

| 3. | whether this funding has been used? |
| --- | --- |

3.

whether this funding has been used?

---
# C_2023261EN.01004201.xml

| 24.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/42

---

Action brought on 7 June 2023 — Naturgy Energy Group v EUIPO — Global Power Service (gps global power service)

(Case T-312/23)

(2023/C 261/57)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Naturgy Energy Group, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. Mora Cortés, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Global Power Service SpA (Verona, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark gps global power service — Application for registration No 18 001 007

Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 March 2023 in Case R 505/2022-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul or revoke the contested decision, in so far as the appeal in Case R 505/2022-4 is dismissed, and grant, in its entirety, the contested mark in respect of all the goods and services sought; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul or revoke the contested decision, in so far as the appeal in Case R 505/2022-4 is dismissed, and grant, in its entirety, the contested mark in respect of all the goods and services sought;

| — | order EUIPO and the intervener (if the latter intervenes in this action) to pay the costs, including those relating to the proceedings before the Operations Department and before the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the intervener (if the latter intervenes in this action) to pay the costs, including those relating to the proceedings before the Operations Department and before the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO.

Plea in law

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

---
Joseph E. TEAGUE, Jr., P.E., CM. v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION.

No. 281P06-4.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 10, 2008.

Joseph E. Teague, Jr., Pro Se.

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

Prior report: 177 N.C.App. 215, 628 S.E.2d 395.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Plaintiff on the 20th day of March 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 10th day of April 2008."
----

(2004/C 33 E/058)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0654/03

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(5 March 2003)

Subject:   Mozambique sugar farmers

Is the Commission aware of the devastating effect the 8 000-tonne import quota imposed on sugar exports from Mozambique is having on Mozambican inhabitants?

Mozambique has the means to produce as much as 30 000 tonnes of sugar for export to European countries. However, they are unable to do so owing to the strict import quota. Sugar factories in Mozambique are prepared to fund small-scale farmers to buy equipment to enable them to produce sugar from their rich farmland, therefore alleviating the dependence of Mozambicans on EU aid. However, the quotas imposed are restricting this possibility.

Is the Commission prepared to review and increase the quota, beyond the proposed 15 % increase, imposed on Mozambique sugar imports? Will the Commission make every effort to open up the market to Mozambique, therefore empowering its people to rebuild their economy and in turn reduce the need for international aid?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(26 March 2003)

Mozambique had no access to the Community's sugar market before the ‘Everything But Arms’ (EBA) initiative. This initiative has, therefore, offered them new preferential export opportunities and has played an important part in the revival of the sector after civil war and flood.

Mozambique will be able to export unlimited quantities of sugar to the Community from 2009. Meanwhile, transitional arrangements apply: they participate in the EBA quota which increases year on year by 15 % from 74185 tonnes in 2001-2002 to 197 355 tonnes in 2008-2009. These transitional arrangements were necessary to allow the Community to undertake the necessary internal adjustments necessary to cope with increased EBA imports.

It would be inadvisable for the sugar sector to rely solely on access to one foreign market: for development reasons, all export opportunities should be considered. Mozambique is thus starting to export to other markets both within the Southern African Development Community (SADC) region and to the United States, which should further help Mozambican sugar farmers.

----