alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
 
                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.01
 
                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS
 
  We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (SEC File No. 333-39923) of U.S.A. Floral Products, Inc.
of our reports relating to the respective financial statements which appear in
this Annual Report on Form 10-K.
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS                           REPORT DATE
                 --------------------                           -----------
        <S>                                                  <C>
        U.S.A. Floral Products, Inc.                         February 24, 1998
        The Roy Houff Company                                November 26, 1997
        CFX, Inc.                                            January 9, 1998
        Bay State Florist Supply                             January 6, 1998
        Flowtrad Corporation, N.V.
         d/b/a Flower Trading Corporation                    December 16, 1997
        United Wholesale Florists, Inc. and
         United Wholesale Florists of America,
         Inc.                                                December 31, 1997
        American Florist Supply, Inc.                        January 6, 1998
        Monterey Bay Bouquet, Inc. and Bay
         Area Bouquet, Inc.                                  November 14, 1997
        Alpine Gem Flower Shippers, Inc.                     December 12, 1997
</TABLE>
 
 
/s/ Price Waterhouse LLP
 
Price Waterhouse LLP
Washington, DC
March 24, 1998
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
           Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
                  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the
Annual Report of VASCO Data Security International, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-K for the period ending December 31, 2005 (the "Report"), I, T. Kendall Hunt,
Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Company,
certify, 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 my knowledge:

     i.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


/s/ T. Kendall Hunt
-------------------------------------
T. Kendall Hunt
Chief Executive Officer and Chairman
of the Board of Directors

March 15, 2007
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 531 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 531

  To repeal section 10(f) of Public Law 93-531, commonly known as the 
                          ``Bennett Freeze''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            February 8, 2007

  Mr. McCain introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
              referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To repeal section 10(f) of Public Law 93-531, commonly known as the 
                          ``Bennett Freeze''.

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

SECTION 1. REPEAL OF THE BENNETT FREEZE.

    Section 10(f) of Public Law 93-531 (25 U.S.C. 640d-9(f)) is 
repealed.
                                 <all>
```
# Commission Implementing Decision of 17 November 2014 concerning certain interim protective measures in relation to highly            pathogenic avian influenza of subtype H5N8 in the Netherlands (notified under document C(2014) 8752) (Only the Dutch text            is authentic) (Text with EEA relevance) (2014/808/EU) (repealed)         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Decision

# of 17 November 2014

# concerning certain interim protective measures in relation to highly pathogenic avian influenza of subtype H5N8 in the Netherlands

# *(notified under document C(2014) 8752)*

# (Only the Dutch text is authentic)

# (Text with EEA relevance)

# (2014/808/EU) (repealed)

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

Textual Amendments

F1Repealed by 2014/833/EU: Commission Implementing Decision of 25 November 2014 concerning certain protective measures in relation to recent                                 outbreaks of highly pathogenic avian influenza of subtype H5N8 in the Netherlands (notified under document C(2014) 9126) Text                                 with EEA relevance.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23

- 6989

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. SIGMUND DIAOLA JAMES, a/k/a Sig , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Orangeburg

. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior District Judge. ( 5:08

- cr - 00944

- CMC

- 1 )

Submitted : May 21, 2024 Decided: May 23, 2024

Before WYNN and BENJAMIN , Circuit Judges , and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Sigmund Diaola James , Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-6989 Doc: 6 Filed: 05/23/2024 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Sigmund Diaola James appeals the district court’s order construing his pro se motions under the First Step Act and Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 as unauthorized, successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motions and dismissing them for lack of jurisdiction

. * Our review of the
record confirms that the district court properly construed James’ motions as successive § 225 5 motions over which it lacked jurisdiction because h e failed to obtain prefiling
authorization from this court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A); United States v. Ferguson , 55 F.4th 262, 270

- 72 (4th Cir. 2022); McRae , 793 F.3d at 397

- 400. Accordingly, we affirm
the district court’s order.
Consistent with our decision in United States v. Winestock , 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003), we construe James’ notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. Upon review, we conclude that James’ claims do
not meet the relevant standard. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). We therefore deny authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

* A certificate of appealability is not required to appeal the district court’s jurisdictional categorization of a motion as an unauthorized , successive habeas petition. United States v. McRae , 793 F.3d 392, 400 (4th Cir. 2015). USCA4 Appeal: 23-6989 Doc: 6 Filed: 05/23/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
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 Interior

###### Bureau of Land Management 

          - [ES-960-1910-BJ-4789] ES-053725, Group No. 35, Missouri 

# AGENCY:

Bureau of Land Management. 

# ACTION:

Notice of Filing of Plat of Survey; Missouri. 

# SUMMARY:

                        The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) will file the plat of survey of the lands described below in the BLM-Eastern States, Springfield, Virginia, 30 calendar days from the date of publication in the                         **Federal Register**                        .                     

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Bureau of Land Management, 7450 Boston Boulevard, Springfield, Virginia 22153. Attn: Cadastral Survey. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This survey was requested by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 

The lands we surveyed are:

## Fifth Principal Meridian, Missouri 

T. 48 N., Rs. 4 and 5 E.

The plat of survey represents the survey of a portion of the Lock and Dam No. 26 acquisition boundary on an island in the Mississippi River in Township 48 North, Range 4 and 5 East, of the Fifth Principal Meridian, in the State of Missouri, and was accepted September 2, 2005. We will place a copy of the plat we described in the open files. It will be made available to the public as a matter of information. 

Dated: September 2, 2005. 

Stephen D. Douglas, 

Chief Cadastral Surveyor. 

[FR Doc. 05-17973 Filed 9-9-05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310-GJ-P
# CE2004078EN.01069201.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/692 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/692

---

(2004/C 78 E/0739)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3878/02

by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 January 2003)

Subject:   Community-wide harmonisation of time limits for the writing-off of tax arrears

Subject:

Regarding the EU's goal of tax harmonisation, numerous experts on international taxation in the context of the different Member States are now considering whether harmonisation should extend to the time limits for the writing-off of tax arrears.

The variations existing between Member States in the time limits for writing off tax arrears create a degree of discrimination between citizens and undertakings of different Member States, and for those operating in more than one country confusion can arise.

Can the Commission state whether its proposals on the time limits for writing off tax arrears include any consideration of the desirability of harmonising the national rules in this field, in order to introduce uniform rules and put an end to the discrimination between Member States?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(20 February 2003)

(20 February 2003)

The Commission's policy in direct taxation is set out in its Communication (1) addressed to the Council, the Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee. In that document it says:

1

| | It is clear that there is no need for an across the board harmonisation of Member States' tax systems. Provided that they respect Community rules, Member States are free to choose the tax systems that they consider most appropriate and according to their preferences. |
| --- | --- |

It is clear that there is no need for an across the board harmonisation of Member States' tax systems. Provided that they respect Community rules, Member States are free to choose the tax systems that they consider most appropriate and according to their preferences.

In this context, the Commission has no plans to make a proposal to harmonise the direct tax rules to which the Honourable Member refers.

---

(1)  OJ C 284, 10.10.2001.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1999 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-30-2000
<CASH>                                           7,500
<SECURITIES>                                     2,200
<RECEIVABLES>                                      179
<ALLOWANCES>                                        (3)
<INVENTORY>                                        556
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                11,083
<PP&E>                                           4,087
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,578
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  12,845
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,677
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            14
<OTHER-SE>                                       6,446
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    12,845
<SALES>                                            218
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   218
<CGS>                                            1,023
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,595
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  51
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (4,297)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (4,297)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (4,297)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.32)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.32)


</TABLE>
STATE v. INGRAM.

No. COA08-108.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed July 15, 2008.

Certification Date August 4, 2008.

Appeal from Forsyth (05CRS57925, 06CRS7521).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
In the Matter of J.T. (I), J.T. (II), A.J. appealed by Cumberland County DSS & GAL.

No. 155PA08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 26, 2008.

Elizabeth Kennedy-Gurnee, Fayetteville, for J.T., J.T., and A.J.

*743Beth A. Hall, Attorney Advocate, for Guardian ad Litem.

Richard Croutharmel, for Mother.

Peter Wood, for Father.

Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ___, 657 S.E.2d 692.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Petitioners (Cumberland County DSS & GAL) on the 8th day of April 2008 for Writ of Supersedeas of the judgment of the Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 26th day of August 2008."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 8th day of April 2008 by Petitioners (Cumberland County DSS & GAL) in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 26th day of August 2008."

Therefore the case is docketed as of the date of this order's certification. Briefs of the respective parties shall be submitted to this Court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 15(g)(2).
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 18/2014Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 18/2014 of 10 January 2014 entering a name in the register of traditional specialities            guaranteed [Žemaitiškas kastinys (TSG)]         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 18/2014                     

# of 10 January 2014

# entering a name in the register of traditional specialities guaranteed [Žemaitiškas kastinys (TSG)]

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)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Lithuania’s application to register the name ‘Žemaitiškas kastinys’                              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                              ‘Žemaitiškas kastinys’ 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, 10 January 2014.

*For the Commission*                            

*The President*                            

José Manuel Barroso                            

## ANNEXU.K.

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

### **Class 1.4.****Other products of animal origin (eggs, honey, various dairy products except butter, etc.)**U.K.

#### LITHUANIAU.K.

Žemaitiškas kastinys (TSG)

1

OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.                           

2

OJ C 237, 15.8.2013, p. 40.
habt-ex101_54.htm



 

Exhibit 10.1

 

AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO 

 

FIFTH AMENDED & RESTATED LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY AGREEMENT

 

 

This Amendment No. 1 (this “Amendment”) to the Fifth Amended and Restated Limited Liability Company Agreement, dated as of April 6, 2015 (the “LLC Agreement”), of The Habit Restaurants, LLC (the “Company”) is made and entered into as of May 16, 2016 by and among the signatories hereto.  Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings assigned to such terms in the LLC Agreement.

 

WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 9.5 of the LLC Agreement, any amendment or modification to the Agreement may be effected by written consent of the Managing Member in its sole discretion without the approval of any other Member or other Person, provided that such amendment does not materially and adversely affect the rights of a holder of Units, other than on a pro rata basis with other holders of Units of the same Class without the consent of such holder; 

 

WHEREAS, the Managing Member desires to amend the Exchange Procedures pursuant to Section 3.9 of the LLC Agreement in such a way as does not materially and adversely affect the rights of a holder of Units, other than on a pro rata basis with other holders of Units of the same Class; and

 

WHEREAS, this Amendment shall be binding on all of the parties hereto for all purposes.

 

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained in this Amendment and in the LLC Agreement, as amended, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which being hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto intending to be legally bound, agree as follows:

 


	
1.
	
Amendment to Weekly Exchange Date.  All references to “Weekly Exchange Date” are hereby deleted and replaced with “Bi-Weekly Exchange Date.” Additionally, the definition of “Weekly Exchange Date” is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:




“Bi-Weekly Exchange Date” means the First Exchange Date and the last Business Day of each second sequential week thereafter. For the avoidance of doubt, “bi-weekly” shall refer to every two weeks. 

 


	
2.
	
Miscellaneous.  Except as set forth herein, the terms of the LLC Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.  The provisions of Article IX (Miscellaneous Provisions) of the LLC Agreement shall apply to this Amendment directly as if incorporated herein.




***

 



 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this LLC Agreement to be duly executed as of the date first written above.

 

COMPANY:

THE HABIT RESTAURANTS, LLC, 

a Delaware limited liability company

 

By: The Habit Restaurants, Inc., a Delaware 

corporation, its Managing Member

 

 

/s/ Russell Bendel         

By:Russell Bendel
Title: Chief Executive Officer
#### Hideyo Chow et al., Respondents, v Anew XCVIII, Inc., et al., Appellants.

[801 NYS2d 29]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Werner Kornreich, J.), entered July 1, 2004, which, inter aha, granted plaintiff subtenant’s motion for partial summary judgment on his cause of action to enjoin defendants prime tenant and its principal from interfering with his removal of certain dental equipment from the premises, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff was not a party to the prime lease and his sublease was oral. Under the circumstances, defendants cannot show that plaintiff specifically assumed defendants’ duties under the prime lease *(see*Finkelstein and Ferrara, Landlord and Tenant Practice in New York § 4:149, at 4-56 [West’s NY Prac Series, vol F, *8142004]). Accordingly, plaintiff is not bound by the provision of the prime lease deeming equipment attached to or built into the premises to be part of the premises and the landlord’s property *(cf. Ivan Mogull Music Corp. v Madison-59th St. Corp.,*162 AD2d 336, 337 [1990]). C,oncur—Friedman, J.P., Marlow, Gonzalez and Catterson, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Richard Perez, Appellant.

[799 NYS2d 914]

Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a decision and order of this Court dated October 6, 2003 *(People v Perez,*309 AD2d 769 [2003]), affirming a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered October 12, 1999.

Ordered that the application is denied.

The appellant has failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel *(see Jones v Barnes,*463 US 745 [1983]; *People v Stultz,*2 NY3d 277 [2004]). Adams, J.P., Cozier, Mastro and Skelos, JJ., concur.
STATE v. Byron Lamar WARING.

No. 525A07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 9, 2008.

Mary S. Pollard, for Waring.

Doug Faucette, Robert Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, C. Colon Willoughby, Jr., District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 7th day of January 2008 by Defendant for Extension of Time for Court Reporter to Deliver Transcript:

"Motion Allowed. Court reporter shall have up to and including the 7th day of February 2008 to prepare and deliver transcript to counsel. By order of the Court in conference this the 9th day of January 2008."