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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-06-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                       1,227,706
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   13,762
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,550,757
<PP&E>                                         360,417
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,117,279
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          181,515
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     7,171,013
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,117,274
<SALES>                                         21,001
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                21,001
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,020,437
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (18,516)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (980,920)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       524
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (981,444)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (981,444)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.06)


</TABLE>
----

(2004/C 65 E/140)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2283/03

by Elspeth Attwooll (ELDR) to the Commission

(9 July 2003)

Subject:   Development of cod nurseries

Has the Commission considered the possible benefits of rearing cod, produced from the spawn of wild cod, in nurseries for release into the sea? What plans does the Commission have to promote research into the feasibility and the implications, both positive and negative, of such a practice?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(1 August 2003)

The rearing of cod in nurseries for release into the sea may have different objectives: sea ranching, i.e. releasing cod into the sea in areas where there are none or very small natural cod resources, stock enhancement, i.e. trying to improve existing cod populations, and stock recovery, i.e. helping depleted stocks to recover.

Historically, interest has focused on stock enhancement and a few attempts have been made, mainly in Norway. At the marine biological station near Arendal in southern Norway there is a 100 year long history of releasing reared cod. The experience from this was summed up in an international symposium in 1993 and it was concluded that there were no measurable benefits. A workshop organised by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) in 1994 (‘Workshop to evaluate the potential of stock enhancement as an approach to fisheries management’), partly funded by the Commission, concluded that stock enhancement of cod in general was unlikely to be successful. This workshop also evaluated a proposal from Canada to rear cod to restore the depleted Newfoundland stock, but the conclusions were negative also in this respect.

The reasons for the lack of success in cod enhancement are not fully understood, but a number of factors may be involved, e.g. problems of reared cod to adapt to natural conditions, competition with the natural populations and limits to the capacity of the ecosystem. It should also be noted that even if stock enhancement of cod should lead to some improvement, it would be virtually impossible to separate this effect from natural stock fluctuations. Furthermore, cod rearing is expensive and the cost benefits of an enhancement program are questionable even if it were successful.

Based on the available information on stock enhancement, as described above, the Commission has not considered it a priority to promote research in this area.

----
STATE of North Carolina. v. Donald Durrant FARROW.

No. 341P12-3.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Aug. 20, 2015.

Donald Durrant Farrow, for Farrow, Donald Durrant.

Kimberly N. Callahan, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

A. Leon Stanback, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by Defendant on the 1st of July 2015 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30 (substantial constitutional question), the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the notice of appeal is

> "Dismissed Ex Mero Motu by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of August 2015."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 22nd of July 2015 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision *198of 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:

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of August 2015."
# C_2023035EN.01006701.xml

| 30.1.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 35/67 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.1.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 35/67

---

Action brought on 14 November 2022 — White Pearl v Commission

(Case T-708/22)

(2023/C 35/85)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: White Pearl, Unipessoal, Lda (Zona Franca da Madeira) (Funchal, Portugal) (represented by: S. Gemas Donário and S. Soares, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul Commission Decision C(2020) 8550 final of 4 December 2020 on aid scheme SA.21259 (2018/C) (ex 2018/NN) implemented by Portugal for Zona Franca da Madeira (ZFM) — Regime III; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Decision C(2020) 8550 final of 4 December 2020 on aid scheme SA.21259 (2018/C) (ex 2018/NN) implemented by Portugal for Zona Franca da Madeira (ZFM) — Regime III;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law that are, essentially, identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-553/22, Thorn Investments v Commission.

---
HARLEYSVILLE INS. v. BUZZ OFF INSECT.

No. 272A08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 6, 2009.

David L. Brown, John I. Malone, Jr., Martha P. Brown, Greensboro, for Harleysville Mutual Ins. Co.

John S. Buford, Greensboro, Cecilia O. Miller, Diana S. Casey, San Diego, CA, for International Garment Tech.

Gary K. Sue, Greensboro, Michael A. Hamilton, for Erie Insurance.

David Neal Allen, Charlotte, Theodore B. Smyth, Raleigh, for NC Assoc of Defense Attys.

Joseph W. Eason, Stephen D. Martin, Raleigh, for Property Casualty Insurers Asso.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 2nd day of January 2009 by Defendant (International Garment Tech) for Extension of Time to File Brief:

"Motion Allowed. Defendant (International Garment Tech) shall have up to and including the 23rd day of January 2009 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court. By order of the Court in conference this the 6th day of January 2009."
# CE2004078EN.01009002.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/90 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/90

---

(2004/C 78 E/0089)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2197/03

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(2 July 2003)

Subject:   Cattle transport — CATRA findings

Subject:

The Commission announces in its communication IP/03/854 that the CATRA research project makes recommendations on the transportation of cattle (over long distances).

According to the findings of this study, animals experience the greatest stress during loading and unloading. Also, cattle transport vehicles need better, more appropriate design. The study also calls for improvements in the design of lairage facilities.

What concrete measures will the Commission be taking in these areas in order not only to improve the quality of the meat — as it states in its communication —, but also to ensure that transportation of animals takes place under the best possible conditions for them?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(4 August 2003)

(4 August 2003)

A legislative proposal on the protection of animals during transport was adopted by the Commission on 16 July 2003. Scientific advice provides a sound basis for the formulation of policy proposals by the Commission and the recent findings of the Community-funded cattle transport (CATRA) research project provide valuable information in this regard. Additional inputs concerning this issue include an opinion from the Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare and the outcome of a detailed stakeholder and public consultation.

The legislative proposal takes these various elements into account in order to improve the protection of animals during transport. The Commission's proposal covers inter alia animal loading and unloading, handling facilities, vehicle standards and the training of personnel. The Commission believes that a step-by-step approach represents the best means of securing real improvements in animal welfare over the short to medium term. Consequently, the Commission proposal aims to ensure that the high standards recommended by scientists are implemented by the creation of proper legislative instruments, facilitating improved control and enforcement by the national competent authorities.

---
Terri YOUNG v. Daniel BAILEY, in his Official Capacity as Sheriff of Mecklenburg County, and Ohio Casualty Insurance Company.

No. 355PA14-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Aug. 20, 2015.

Harvey L. Kennedy, Attorney at Law, Winston-Salem, for Young, Terri.

Harold L. Kennedy, III, Attorney at Law, Winston-Salem, for Young, Terri.

Sean F. Perrin, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for Bailey, Daniel, et al.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by the Plaintiff on the 26th of May 2015 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30, and the motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question filed by the Defendants, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the motion to dismiss the appeal is

> "Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of August 2015."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 26th of May 2015 by Plaintiff 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 *833was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

> "Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of August 2015."

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).

Plaintiff shall forthwith submit an appeal bond to this Court, as provided by Appellate Rule 17(b). The bond may be in cash or by a written undertaking with good and sufficient surety in the sum of $250.00.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000             DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000             JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           7,725                   4,028
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  110,100                  78,641
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                      7,494                   7,905
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               141,518                 103,655
<PP&E>                                          68,765                  54,756
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 402,372                 329,119
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           20,789                  21,753
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                           484                     480
<OTHER-SE>                                     156,061                 153,714
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   402,372                 329,119
<SALES>                                              0                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               137,532                 104,449
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                88,862                  68,860
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (1,607)                   (762)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 47,063                  34,827
<INCOME-TAX>                                    17,766                  13,147
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             29,297                  21,680
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                   (678)
<NET-INCOME>                                    29,297                  21,002
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.61                    0.44
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.60                    0.43


</TABLE>
STATE of North Carolina v. Christopher David AMYX.

No. 54P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 11, 2015.

George B. Currin, Raleigh, For Amyx, Christopher David.

L. Michael Dodd, Special Deputy Attorney General, For State of North Carolina.

Frank R. Parrish, District Attorney, For State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 3rd of February 2015 by Defendant 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:

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 11th of June 2015."

ERVIN, J. recused.
# C_2023338EN.01001001.xml

| 25.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 338/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 338/10

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 27 June 2023 — Rzecznik Finansowy

(Case C-390/23, Rzecznik Finansowy)

(2023/C 338/14)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Najwyższy

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Rzecznik Finansowy

Other parties to the proceedings: Bank AG S.A., M.S., A.K.

Question referred

Does the second [subparagraph] of Article 19(1) of the Treaty on European Union, in conjunction with the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, preclude national legislation which provides that a court of last instance (the Sąd Najwyższy) hearing an extraordinary appeal (extraordinary action) against a final judgment of an ordinary court is to sit in a panel which includes a person (a lay judge of the Sąd Najwyższy) who:

| 1. | is not a judge of the Sąd Najwyższy; |
| --- | --- |

1.

is not a judge of the Sąd Najwyższy;

| 2. | has been appointed to perform his or her function:






  (a) | directly by the legislature — by a simple majority, |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

has been appointed to perform his or her function:

(a)

directly by the legislature — by a simple majority,

| (b) | on the basis of general and unverifiable selection criteria, |
| --- | --- |

(b)

on the basis of general and unverifiable selection criteria,

| (c) | in a procedure which does not allow judicial review of the appointment, |
| --- | --- |

(c)

in a procedure which does not allow judicial review of the appointment,

| (d) | for a term of four years; |
| --- | --- |

(d)

for a term of four years;

| 3. | and may be dismissed by the legislature, which is also not subject to judicial review? |
| --- | --- |

3.

and may be dismissed by the legislature, which is also not subject to judicial review?

---
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 46 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to expand the permissible 

use of health savings accounts to include premiums for non-group high 

deductible health plan coverage. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 4, 2007 

Mr. ENSIGN (for himself, Mr. DEMINT, Mr. GRAHAM, and Mr. COBURN) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to expand 

the permissible use of health savings accounts to include 

premiums for non-group high deductible health plan coverage. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Affordability in the 

5 Individual Market Act’’. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with BILLS
2 

•S 46 IS

1 SEC. 2. USE OF HEALTH SAVINGS ACCOUNTS FOR NON2 GROUP HIGH DEDUCTIBLE HEALTH PLAN 

3 PREMIUMS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 223(d)(2)(C) of the Inter5 nal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to exceptions) is 

6 amended by striking ‘‘or’’ at the end of clause (iii), by 

7 striking the period at the end of clause (iv) and inserting 

8 ‘‘, or’’, and by adding at the end the following new clause: 

9 ‘‘(v) a high deductible health plan, 

10 other than a group health plan (as defined 

11 in section 5000(b)(1)).’’. 

12 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

13 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

14 December 31, 2007. 

Æ 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with BILLS
NUMBER 13-08-00384-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN RE MARIO GILBERTO CANALES

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Yañez and Benavides

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam 

Relator, Mario Gilberto Canales, filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the above

cause on June 13, 2008, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion in denying

relator’s special appearance and plea in abatement in a divorce and child custody case.

This Court requested and received a response from the real party in interest, Lizbeth

Riquelme, and further received a reply brief filed by relator. 

The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus,

response thereto, and the reply brief, is of the opinion that relator has not shown himself

entitled to the relief sought. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED.
2

See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). 

PER CURIAM

Memorandum Opinion delivered and filed

this 15 day of August, 2008. th
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED DECEMBER 7, 2022

NO. 03-22-00443-CV

E. F.-B., Appellant

v.

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 146TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE BYRNE, JUSTICES TRIANA AND SMITH

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE BYRNE

This is an appeal from the final decree signed by the trial court on June 23, 2022. Having 

reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error 

in the trial court’s final decree. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s final decree. 

Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs is made.
STATE of North Carolina v. George Washington DOUGHTY.

No. 569P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

February 5, 2009.

George W. Doughty, Pro Se.

Catherine F. Jordan, Assistant Attorney General, Ben David, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 29th day of December 2008 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th day of February 2009."
**Exhibit 32.2**

**RECKSON OPERATING PARTNERSHIP, L.P.**

 

**Certification of Michael Maturo, President, Treasurer, Chief Financial Officer and Director of**

**Reckson Associates Realty Corp.,  the sole general partner of the Registrant**

**Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code**

I, Michael Maturo, President, Treasurer, Chief Financial Officer and Director of Reckson Associates Realty Corp., the sole general partner of Reckson Operating Partnership, L.P. (the “Company”), certify pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

|   | 1) | The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2006 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

Dated:May 15, 2006

 

|   |   | By  | /s/        Michael Maturo                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        |
|--------|--------|----------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |     |  

 

 

Michael Maturo,President, Treasurer, Chief Financial Officer and Director of Reckson Associates RealtyCorp., the sole general partner of the Registrant

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Reckson Operating Partnership, L.P. and will be furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

  |