alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 99/2014Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 99/2014 of 3 February 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 99/2014                     

# of 3 February 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, 3 February 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.
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 97-4397

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Nebraska. Robert Lee Weaselhead, Jr. * * [PUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: January 11, 1999 Filed: January 29, 1999

___________ Before BOWMAN, Chief Judge, McMILLIAN, RICHARD S. ARNOLD, FAGG , WOLLMAN, BEAM, LOKEN, HANSEN, MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, MURPHY, En Banc
.

___________ PER CURIAM. Chie f Judge Bowman, Judge Richard S. Arnold, Judge Fagg, Judge Morris S
. Arnol d, and Judge Murphy would affirm the order of the district court rejectin g Weaselhead’s claim of double jeopardy and denying his motion to dismiss Count II I of the superseding indictment. Judge McMillian, Judge Wollman, Judge Beam, Judge Loken, and Judge Hansen would reverse that order.-2-

By the vote of an equally divided Court, the order of the district court i s affirmed. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
EXHIBIT 31.1

CERTIFICATION

          I, Randolph F. Williams, certify that:

          1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of LSB Financial Corp. (the "Registrant");

          2.   Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statement were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

          3.   Based on my knowledge, the consolidated financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the consolidated financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

          4.   The Registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) forthe registrant and have:

                    a)   designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theRegistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

                    b)   evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and proceduresas of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

                    c)   disclosed in this report any changes in the Registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the Registrant's most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected,or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

          5.   The Registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Registrant's auditors and the auditcommittee of Registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

NEXT PAGE

                    a)   all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Registrant'sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

                    b)   any fraud, whether of not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

Date: August 13, 2004

| /s/ Randolph F. WilliamsRandolph F. WilliamsPresident and Chief Executive Officer |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v James L. Boyd, Appellant.

[801 NYS2d 469]

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Francis A. Affronti, J), rendered September 10, 2002. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of murder in the second degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

*1429Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon a jury verdict, of murder in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.25 [1]). The People presented evidence at trial establishing that defendant repeatedly stabbed his girlfriend and fractured her skull with a baseball bat, causing her death. The murder occurred in the home where defendant resided with the victim and her two sons. We reject defendant’s contention that a comment made by a police officer after the officer elicited pedigree information from defendant but prior to the administration of *Miranda*warnings constituted interrogation. The officer indicated to defendant that he would like to talk to him “about what had happened and that we had already spoken to the children” and, in response to that comment, defendant reportedly broke down and began to sob. He was advised of his *Miranda*rights after he regained his composure, before any actual questioning commenced. We conclude that the officer’s comment to defendant was a simple statement of fact, not designed to evoke an incriminating response from defendant *(see Rhode Island v Innis,*446 US 291, 300-301 [1980]; *see also People v Howard,*60 NY2d 999, 1001 [1983]). Defendant’s reaction to the comment was spontaneous and not the product of “ ‘inducement, provocation, encouragement or acquiescence’ ” *(People v Gonzales,*75 NY2d 938, 939 [1990], *cert denied*498 US 833 [1990]), and the fact that defendant sobbed in response to the comment was admissible at trial, as was the information obtained from defendant after he waived his *Miranda*rights. Supreme Court therefore properly denied defendant’s suppression motion *(see People v Oglesby,*15 AD3d 888, 889 [2005], *lv denied*4 NY3d 855 [2005]). Contrary to defendant’s further contention, “[t]here is no Federal or State due process requirement that interrogations and confessions be electronically recorded” (Pe*ople v Falkenstein,*288 AD2d 922, 923 [2001], *lv denied*97 NY2d 704 [2002]).

Finally, we reject defendant’s contention that the court erred in its *Sandoval*ruling. Pursuant to that ruling, the court prohibited the People from cross-examining defendant with respect to all convictions and bad acts that occurred more than 10 years prior to the crime at issue herein and otherwise narrowly limited the People’s ability to cross-examine defendant with respect to more recent crimes and bad acts. Thus, we conclude that the court’s *Sandoval*ruling does not constitute an abuse of discretion *(see generally People v Walker,*83 NY2d 455, 458-459 [1994]; *People v Ellis,*183 AD2d 534, 535 [1992], *affd*81 NY2d 854 [1993]). Present—Kehoe, J.P., Gorski, Martoche, Smith and Hayes, JJ.
STATE of North Carolina v. Dorindo ESQUIVEL-LOPEZ.

No. 337P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 17, 2006.

Charlesena Walker, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Dorindo Esquivel-Lopez.

Celia Lata, Special Deputy Attorney General, Thomas J. Keith, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 21st day of June 2006 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 17th day of August 2006."
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 762/2014Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 762/2014 of 14 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 762/2014                     

# of 14 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, 14 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.
# Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/645 (repealed)Show full title

Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/645 of 20 April 2015 establishing the list of Union inspectors who may carry out            inspections pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 (notified under document C(2015) 2496) (repealed)         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/645                     

# of 20 April 2015

# establishing the list of Union inspectors who may carry out inspections pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009

# *(notified under document C(2015) 2496)* (repealed)                     

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

Textual Amendments

F1Repealed by Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/706 of 3 May 2016 establishing the list of Union inspectors who may carry out inspections                                 pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 (notified under document C(2016) 2606).
# The Planning (General Development) (Amendment) Order (Northern Ireland) 2014 (revoked)

        - Previous
        - Next

N.I.

Statutory Rules of Northern Ireland

# 2014 No. 31

Planning

# The Planning (General Development) (Amendment) Order (Northern Ireland) 2014 (revoked)F1

Made

10th February 2014

Coming into operation

10th March 2014

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

F1Order revoked (1.4.2015) by The Planning (General Development Procedure) Order (Northern Ireland) 2015 (S.R. 2015/72), art. 1(1), **Sch. 4**
<PAGE>   1
                                                                EXHIBIT 10.2

                              AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE
                                       TO
                              CONSULTING AGREEMENT

        The Consulting Agreement entered into on August 25, 1994, by and
between Russell Seheult, (hereinafter the "Consultant") and Nickelodeon Theater
Co., Inc., is hereby amended as follows:

        WHEREAS, the name of Nickelodeon Theater Co., Inc. was changed by
amendment to that corporation's Articles of Incorporation on August 25, 1995, to
CinemaStar Luxury Theaters, Inc., (hereinafter the "Company"); and 

        WHEREAS, the compensation under the aforementioned Consulting Agreement
was increased to $52,000 per year pursuant to a resolution of the board of
directors at the Company's Annual Directors Meeting held on August 23, 1996; and

        WHEREAS, the Company by and through its Board of Directors believes it
to be in the best interests of the Company to extend the Consulting Agreement
of Consultant;

        NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of these premises and the promises
herein made, the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree
as follows:

1.      As an inducement for Consultant to remain engaged by Company for a
period of time beyond the term specified in the Consulting Agreement of August
25, 1994, Company hereby agrees to extend the term of that Agreement for a
period of five (5) years commencing upon the execution hereof by the parties,
unless sooner terminated in accordance with other provisions of the Consulting
Agreement that is amended hereby.

2.      Paragraph 2. of the Consulting Agreement of August 25, 1994 is hereby
deleted in its entirety.

3.      Except for the modifications specified in this Amendment Number One,
all of the remaining terms and conditions of the Consulting Agreement shall
remain in full force and effect for the newly stated term of this Amendment
Number One.

        IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have duly executed this Amendment
Number One on this fifth day of December, 1996.

"Company"                                       "Consultant"

CinemaStar Luxury Theaters, Inc.
a California corporation

By: /s/ Alan Grossberg,                          /s/ Russell Seheult
   -----------------------------                 ------------------------------
   Alan Grossberg,                               Russell Seheult
   Senior Vice President &
   Chief Operating Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 643 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 643

To amend section 1922A of title 38, United States Code, to increase the 
    amount of supplemental insurance available for totally disabled 
                               veterans.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 15, 2007

   Mr. Akaka introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
             referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend section 1922A of title 38, United States Code, to increase the 
    amount of supplemental insurance available for totally disabled 
                               veterans.

    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 ``Disabled Veterans Insurance Act of 
2007''.

SEC. 2. SUPPLEMENTAL INSURANCE FOR TOTALLY DISABLED VETERANS.

    Section 1922A(a) of title 38, United States Code, is amended by 
striking ``$20,000'' and inserting ``$40,000''.
                                 <all>
```
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion

should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-40862

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ALEJANDRO MARTINEZ-CHAVEZ

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:07-CR-528-1

Before GARZA, CLEMENT, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Alejandro Martinez-Chavez

(Martinez) has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Martinez has filed a response.

The record is insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this time of

Martinez’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; such claims generally

“cannot be resolved on direct appeal when [they have] not been raised before the

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 20, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-40862

2

district court since no opportunity existed to develop the record on the merits of

the allegations.” United States v. Cantwell, 470 F.3d 1087, 1091 (5th Cir. 2006)

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Our independent review of the

record, counsel’s brief, and Martinez’s response discloses no nonfrivolous issue

for appeal. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel

is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS

DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000930764
<NAME> INDUSTRIAL ECOSYSTEMS, INC.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          81,129
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   98,103
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               222,761
<PP&E>                                         270,141
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 503,842
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          619,380
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    20,664,527
<OTHER-SE>                                (21,866,588)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   503,842
<SALES>                                        130,833
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                71,077
<CGS>                                           86,717
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  260,729
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,024
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                654,908
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                853,564
<CHANGES>                                        3,348
<NET-INCOME>                                   658,256
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.02


</TABLE>