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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                       4,488,565
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               13,213,909
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             8,381,176
<PP&E>                                     226,011,869
<DEPRECIATION>                             (4,662,208)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             252,010,729
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,698,860
<BONDS>                                    113,984,988
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        95,081
<OTHER-SE>                                 135,512,700
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               252,010,729
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            25,685,836
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,685,043
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,837,524
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               855,311
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           6,799,695
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             11,498,264
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         11,498,264
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                11,498,264
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.21
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.21
        

</TABLE>
STATE v. Robert BISHOP.

No. 223PA15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Nov. 5, 2015.

James R. Grant, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Bishop, Robert.

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

Calvin Scott Meyers, Raleigh, Attorney at Law, for Electronic Frontier Foundation.

Patrick Nadolski, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 21st of September 2015 by Electronic Frontier Foundation for leave to file Amicus Curiae Brief:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th of November 2015."

Unless already submitted, the Amicus Brief shall be submitted to the court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 28(i).
STATE v. PERRY.

No. COA08-278.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed December 2, 2008.

Certification Date December 22, 2008.

Appeal from Franklin (05CRS51360).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 178 (Thursday, September 15, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 54604]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-18289]



[[Page 54604]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS


Joint Biomedical Laboratory Research and Development and Clinical 
Science Research and Development Services Scientific Merit Review 
Board; Notice of Meetings

    The Department of Veterans Affairs gives notice under the Public 
Law 92-463 (Federal Advisory Committee Act) that subcommittees of the 
Joint Biomedical Laboratory Research and Development and Clinical 
Science Research and Development Services Scientific Merit Review Board 
will meet from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. as indicated below.

Gulf War Research A--September 16, 2005, State Plaza Hotel, 2117 E 
Street, NW., Washington, DC
Gulf War Research B--September 30, 2005, Churchill Hotel, 1914 
Connecticut Avenue, NW., Washington, DC

    The purpose of the Board is to provide expert review on the 
scientific quality, budget, safety and mission relevance of 
investigator-initiated research proposals submitted for merit review 
consideration and to provide advice on research program priorities and 
policies. Proposals submitted for review by the Board involve a wide 
range of medical specialties within the general areas of biomedical, 
behavioral and clinic science research. The meeting noted above will 
focus on proposals submitted in response to Request for Proposals 
Directed to Understanding Illnesses Affecting Gulf War Veterans.
    The meetings will be open to the public for approximately thirty 
minutes at the start of each meeting to discuss the general status of 
the program. The remaining portion of each meeting will be closed to 
the public for the review, discussion, and evaluation of initial and 
renewal projects.
    The closed portion of the meetings involves discussion, 
examination, reference to staff and consultant critiques of research 
protocols. During this portion of the meetings, discussion and 
recommendations will deal with qualifications of personnel conducting 
the studies, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly 
unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, as well as research 
information, the premature disclosure of which could significantly 
frustrate implementation of proposed agency action regarding such 
research projects.
    As provided by subsection 10(d) of Public Law 92-463, as amended, 
closing portions of these meetings is in accordance with 5 U.S.C., 
552b(c) (6) and (9)(B). Those who plan to attend or would like to 
obtain a copy of minutes of the meetings should contact William J. 
Goldberg, Ph.D., Department of Veterans Affairs (121E), 810 Vermont 
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420 at (202) 254-0294.

    Dated: September 9, 2005.

    By direction of the Secretary.
E. Philip Riggin,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 05-18289 Filed 9-14-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320-01-M
# CE2004088EN.01044901.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/449 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/449

---

(2004/C 88 E/0458)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3080/03

by David Bowe (PSE) to the Commission

(20 October 2003)

Subject:   Water supply in Palestine

Subject:

The World Health Organisation's recognised minimum domestic water consumption is 100 litres per capita per day. Figures show that the current domestic water supply for Palestinians is only 57-76 litres per capita per day, whilst Israeli consumption is approximately four times that amount.

Is the EU taking action to encourage a more equitable division of this resource? If not, why not?

---
STATE v. Jose Jesus Garcia LOPEZ.

No. 95PA08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

February 5, 2009.

Isaac T. Avery, III, Special Counsel, Rex Gore, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 5th day of January 2009 by Defendant to Amend Defendant Appellant's New Brief:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference this the 5th day of February 2009."
STATE of North Carolina v. Joseph Lamar STOKLEY.

No. 380P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 6, 2008.

Rudolph A. Ashton, III, Charles K. McCotter, Jr., New Bern, for Stokley.

*543Robert T. Hargett, Special Deputy Attorney General, Frank R. Parrish, District Attorney, for State of NC.

Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ___, 646 S.E.2d 640.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 6th day of August 2007 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 6th day of March 2008."
# CE2004070EN.01020001.xml

| 20.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 70/200 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 70/200

---

(2004/C 70 E/216)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3028/03

by Marianne Thyssen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 October 2003)

Subject:   Approval of support for Ford's Belgian car manufacturing plant in Genk and its suppliers

Subject:

According to the Flemish authorities, on 12 September 2003 the Commission approved the granting of support for an investment programme for the Ford car manufacturing plant in Genk (in the Belgian province of Limburg), and for a number of component suppliers. The Commission has apparently agreed that an amount of EUR 45,06 million can be granted to Ford and EUR 2 million to its suppliers.

Can the Commission say whether it has in fact approved this support and, if so, what the amount involved was? Were any conditions imposed on the granting of this support, and if so what conditions, and under what programme or programmes can the support be granted?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(26 November 2003)

(26 November 2003)

The Commission on 5 September 2003 decided not to raise objections against an aid of EUR 45,06 million, which the Belgian authorities intend to grant to Ford Werke AG in Genk and to EUR 2,57 million in favour of five first-tier component suppliers.

The planned aid was assessed under the provisions of the Multisectoral framework on regional aid for large investment projects (1), which applies to the motor vehicle sector since 1 January 2003. As the measure concerns an ad hoc aid, i.e. not aid under an approved scheme, it had to be notified individually. According to the framework, the maximum aid intensity for regional investment aid in the motor vehicle sector is 30 % of the regional aid ceiling.

1

Genk is an assisted Article 87(3)(c) area with a regional ceiling of 14,46 % gross grant equivalent (10 % net grant equivalent). Consequently, the maximum allowable aid intensity was 4,3 %. Belgium intended to grant an intensity of 4,2 %. Based on eligible investments of EUR 1,073 billion, the foreseen aid intensity of 4,2 % resulted into an allowable aid amount in favour of Ford of EUR 45,06 million. Based on the same aid intensity, an aid of EUR 2,57 million was authorised in favour of five first-tier component suppliers.

The aid may only be granted to the extent that the notified investments are in fact carried out. The decision will be published shortly in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Official Journal of the European Union

---

(1)  OJ C 70, 19.3.2002.

1

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Stephan Cooke, Appellant.

[804 NYS2d 516]

Appeal from a judgment of the Erie County Court (Michael E Pietruszka, J.), rendered July 30, 2003. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of burglary in the second degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously modified as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice and on the law by vacating the sentence and as modified the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to Erie County Court for further proceedings in accordance with the following memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of burglary in the second degree (Penal Law § 140.25 [2]). Defendant failed to object to the imposition of restitution at sentencing and thus failed to preserve for our review his contention that County Court erred in enhancing the sentence by imposing restitution at sentencing without affording him the opportunity to withdraw his plea *(see People v Therrien,*12 AD3d 1045, 1046 [2004]; *People v Delair,*6 AD3d 1152 [2004]). We nevertheless exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice *(see*CPL 470.15 [6] [a]) and conclude that, because restitution was not part of the plea agreement, the court should have afforded defendant the opportunity to withdraw his plea before ordering him to pay restitution *(see Therrien,*12 AD3d at 1046; *Delair,*6 AD3d at 1152; *People v Harrington,*3 AD3d 737, 738-739 [2004]). In addition, defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the court erred in relying exclusively upon the presentence report in determining the amount of restitution *(see Therrien,*12 AD3d at 1046). Nevertheless, we further exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, and we conclude that the court erred in failing to conduct a hearing to determine the amount of restitution *(see id.).*We therefore modify the judgment by vacating the sentence, and we remit the matter to County Court to impose the promised sentence or to afford defendant the opportunity to withdraw his plea. Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Gorski, Martoche, Pine and Lawton, JJ.
# Úřední věstník C 321A/11.

| | ISSN 1977-0863 |
| --- | --- |
| Úřední věstník
  Evropské unie | C 321A |
| | |
| České vydání | Informace a oznámení | Ročník 6111. září2018 |

ISSN 1977-0863

Úřední věstník

Evropské unie

C 321A

České vydání

Informace a oznámení

Ročník 6111. září2018

---

| Obsah | Strana |
| --- | --- |
| | Opravy |
| 2018/C 321 A/01 | Oprava oznámení o otevřeném výběrovém řízení – EPSO/AST-SC/07/18 – Ozbrojení pracovníci bezpečnostní a ochranné služby (SC 1/SC 2) ( Úř. věst. C 305 A, 30.8.2018 ) | 1 |

Obsah

Strana

Opravy

2018/C 321 A/01

Oprava oznámení o otevřeném výběrovém řízení – EPSO/AST-SC/07/18 – Ozbrojení pracovníci bezpečnostní a ochranné služby (SC 1/SC 2) ( Úř. věst. C 305 A, 30.8.2018 )

( Úř. věst. C 305 A, 30.8.2018 )

1

---

| CS | |
| --- | --- |

CS

---

Opravy

| 11.9.2018 | CS | Úřední věstník Evropské unie | CA 321/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.9.2018

CS

Úřední věstník Evropské unie

CA 321/1

---

Oprava oznámení o otevřeném výběrovém řízení – EPSO/AST-SC/07/18 – Ozbrojení pracovníci bezpečnostní a ochranné služby (SC 1/SC 2)

(
  Úřední věstník Evropské unie C 305 A ze dne 30. srpna 2018
  )

(2018/C 321 A/01)

Strana 8, příloha II:

| místo: | „1. | Odborná praxe v délce nejméně tří let získaná během posledních šesti let v oblasti ozbrojené ochrany/intervencí ve vládních, vnitrostátních a/nebo mezinárodních veřejných bezpečnostních složkách, a to i v rámci soukromých bezpečnostních agentur poskytujících služby mezinárodním veřejným organizacím, stálým zastoupením nebo diplomatickým misím. Aby bylo možné tuto praxi zohlednit, musí být nad rámec praxe požadované pro účast v tomto výběrovém řízení.“, |
| --- | --- | --- |

místo:

„1.

Odborná praxe v délce nejméně tří let získaná během posledních šesti let v oblasti ozbrojené ochrany/intervencí ve vládních, vnitrostátních a/nebo mezinárodních veřejných bezpečnostních složkách, a to i v rámci soukromých bezpečnostních agentur poskytujících služby mezinárodním veřejným organizacím, stálým zastoupením nebo diplomatickým misím. Aby bylo možné tuto praxi zohlednit, musí být nad rámec praxe požadované pro účast v tomto výběrovém řízení.“,

| má být: | „1. | Odborná praxe v délce nejméně tří let získaná během posledních osmi let v oblasti ozbrojené ochrany/intervencí ve vládních, vnitrostátních a/nebo mezinárodních veřejných bezpečnostních složkách. Aby bylo možné tuto praxi zohlednit, musí být nad rámec praxe požadované pro účast v tomto výběrovém řízení.“ |
| --- | --- | --- |

má být:

„1.

Odborná praxe v délce nejméně tří let získaná během posledních osmi let v oblasti ozbrojené ochrany/intervencí ve vládních, vnitrostátních a/nebo mezinárodních veřejných bezpečnostních složkách. Aby bylo možné tuto praxi zohlednit, musí být nad rámec praxe požadované pro účast v tomto výběrovém řízení.“

---
STATE v. FEASTER.

No. COA07-154.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed October 2, 2007.

Certification Date October 22, 2007.

Appeal from Cleveland (06CRS53544).

Case Reported Without Published Opinion. No error.
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 14

- 00186

- CR

Robert Tyler Best

v.

The State of Texas §

§

§

§

§ From Criminal District Court No. 3

o f Tarrant County (1314929D )

April 9, 2015

Opinion by Chief Justice Livingston

(nfp)



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of

the trial court is affi rmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Terrie Livingston

C hief Justice Terrie Livingston
<PAGE>

                                                               Exhibit 23.1
                                
                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS
                                


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement of 
Applied Digital Access, Inc. on Form S-8 of our report dated January 23, 1998 
on our audits of the financial statements and financial statement schedule of 
Applied Digital Access, Inc. as of December 31, 1997 and 1996, and for the 
years ended December 31, 1997, 1996 and 1995, which report is included in the 
Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Applied Digital Access, Inc. for the year 
ended December 31, 1997. 

COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.

San Diego, California 
April 14, 1998
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 52 

To amend the Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933 to increase the membership of the Board of Directors and require that each State in the 

service area of the Tennessee Valley Authority be represented by at 

least 1 member. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 4, 2007 

Mr. ISAKSON (for himself and Mr. CHAMBLISS) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 

Public Works 

A BILL 

To amend the Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933 to 

increase the membership of the Board of Directors and 

require that each State in the service area of the Tennessee Valley Authority be represented by at least 1 

member. 

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

3 SECTION 1. MEMBERSHIP OF BOARD OF DIRECTORS. 

4 Section 2(a)(1) of the Tennessee Valley Authority Act 

5 of 1933 (16 U.S.C. 831(a)(1)) is amended— 

6 (1) by striking ‘‘9’’ and inserting ‘‘13’’; and 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
2 

•S 52 IS

1 (2) by striking ‘‘at least’’ and all that follows 

2 and inserting ‘‘, of whom at least 1 member shall be 

3 a legal resident of each State in the service area of 

4 the Corporation.’’. 

Æ 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6534

GREGORY D. BROOKINS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN TRENTON CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,

Respondent - Appellee,

and

JON OZMINT, Dir.,

Respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief

District Judge. (3:07-cv-01150-GRA)

Submitted: August 14, 2008 Decided: August 20, 2008

Before MICHAEL, Circuit Judge, and WILKINS and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gregory D. Brookins, Appellant Pro Se. James Anthony Mabry, Donald

John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South

Carolina, for Appellee.
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Gregory D. Brookins seeks to appeal the district court’s

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Brookins has

not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we grant Brookins’

motion to amend his brief, deny a certificate of appealability, and

dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

DISMISSED
WALLIS v. CAMBRON.

No. COA08-481.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed December 2, 2008.

Certification Date December 22, 2008.

Appeal from Mitchell (07CVS73).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
----

(2004/C 65 E/102)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1760/03

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(27 May 2003)

Subject:   Turin to Lyons high-speed rail link: a priority for Europe

The French Government has announced that work on the Turin to Lyons high-speed rail line section cannot begin before 2015.

It is essential to build this line not just for Piedmont, an important geo-economic area, but also in order to create an interconnected Europe-wide system of links between the northern and southern halves of the continent and to link northern Italy to eastern Europe.

Will not the Union stress again, in particular for the benefit of the French Government, that the Turin to Lyons section constitutes a priority where completion of Corridor V is concerned, as the Member of the Commission responsible for transport has repeatedly stated?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(17 July 2003)

The French Government has not yet officially adopted a position on the Lyon-Turin project. The Ministry of Economic Affairs and Finance and the Ministry of Transport have carried out an audit at its request. This was followed by a debate in the National Assembly and the French Senate in May 2003. On the basis of the conclusions of the audit and the debate, the French Government will take a decision in the autumn on the priority it intends to give the project. Against this background, the Commission has emphasised on several occasions, in Parliament as well as to the French authorities, the major importance of the Lyon-Turin project in restoring the modal balance of traffic on a strategic route which will enable western and eastern Europe to be linked across the Alps and Italy. The support given takes the form of a significant financial contribution amounting to EUR 100 million for the period 2001-2006 — under the budget for the trans-European networks — for the studies programme.

In addition, the Lyon-Turin project is one of the projects covered by the scope of the Commission proposal to increase to 20 % the rate of co-funding for which cross-border rail projects crossing natural barriers could be eligible under the budget for the trans-European networks (TEN). The proposal — which was amended (1) following the vote on first reading in Parliament in July 2002 — is still languishing before the Council, and it is not possible to anticipate when the 20 % rate will become effective.

----

(1)  COM(2003) 38 final.

----
STATE v. GIONET.

No. COA08-723.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed December 2, 2008.

Certification Date December 22, 2008.

Appeal from Harnett (07CRS55434).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.