alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
In the Matter of A.A.W., Minor Child. appealed by Mother.

No. 29P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 3, 2007.

Charlotte Blake, Boone, for Mother, Victoria West.

Stephen M. Schoeberle, for Burke County DSS.

Mary R. McKay, Attorney-Advocate, for Guardian ad Litem.

M. Alan LeCroy, Morganton, for Foster Parents.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 23rd day of January 2007 by Respondent (Mother) 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 3rd day of May 2007."
**Exhibit
      32**




CERTIFICATION
  By
        signing below, each of the undersigned hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
        §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
        in
        his or her capacity as an officer of LSB Financial Corp. (the “Registrant”) that
        (i) this 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
        this report fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated
        financial condition of the Registrant at the end of such period and the results
        of operations of the Registrant for such period.
  
  Date:
              November
                  14, 2007
              /s/
              Randolph
                  F. WilliamsRandolph
                  F. WilliamsPresident
                  and Chief Executive OfficerDate:
              November
                  14, 2007
              /s/
              Mary
                Jo DavidMary
                  Jo DavidVice
                  President and Chief Financial
                  Officer
 
  A
        signed original of this
        written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating,
        acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed
        form
        within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section
        906,
        has been provided to LSB Financial Corp. and will be retained by LSB Financial
        Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
        upon
        request.
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 363/2014Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 363/2014 of 9 April 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 363/2014                     

# of 9 April 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, 9 April 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.
#### Town Board of Town of Southampton, Appellant, v Frank Credidio et al., Respondents.

[800 NYS2d 732]

In an action, inter alia, to permanently enjoin the defendants from using or occupying mobile homes on the subject property as dwelling units or as a mobile home park, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Baisley, J.), dated July 1, 2004, which denied its motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for the entry of a judgment permanently enjoining the defendants from using or occupying mobile homes on the subject property as dwelling units or a mobile home park.

The County of Suffolk owned the subject property from 1986 through 1995, and conveyed it to Hubert Jennings in September 1995. After acquiring ownership, the County in 1987 destroyed and removed trailers which were located on the subject property, and did not use the property for any purpose, including the location of mobile homes. Jennings conveyed the subject property to the defendant Frank Credidio who used the property as a mobile home park.

The plaintiff commenced the instant action, inter alia, to permanently enjoin the defendants’ alleged illegal use of the subject property as dwelling units or as a mobile home park and moved for summary judgment. The plaintiff argued, in support *548of its motion, that the defendants’ use of. the property for the location of mobile homes did not constitute a legal nonconforming use, and that any such legal nonconforming use of the property had been abandoned. The Supreme Court denied the motion, finding that there was a triable issue of fact. We reverse.

Southampton Town Code § 330-118 (A) (2) provides, in relevant part, that a nonconforming use shall be deemed to have been abandoned “when it has not in fact been actually used for a continuous period of three years.” Here, the plaintiff established its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by demonstrating that the subject property was not used as a mobile home park for a continuous three-year period, and that the previous owner had abandoned such nonconforming use *(see generally Matter of Boardwalk Mgt. Corp. v Town of Southampton Zoning Bd. of Appeals,*226 AD2d 717 [1996]; *Matter of Campbell v Rose,*221 AD2d 527 [1995]).

In opposition, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The defendants had no legal right to place mobile homes on the property and to use the property as dwelling units or as a mobile home park after such nonconforming use had lapsed *(see Matter of Toys “R” Us v Silva,*89 NY2d 411, 421 [1996]; *Matter of Vite, Inc. v Zoning Bd. of Appeals for Town of Greenville,*282 AD2d 611, 612 [2001]; *Matter of Boardwalk Mgt. Corp. v Town of Southampton, supra; Matter of Campbell v Rose, supra; Matter of Spicer v Holihan,*158 AD2d 459 [1990]). Therefore, the Supreme Court should have granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. Cozier, J.P., S. Miller, Mastro and Rivera, JJ., concur.
HYER v. HYER.

No. COA07-1102.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed October 7, 2008.

Certification Date October 27, 2008.

Appeal from Buncombe (02CVD665).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
# The Social Security (Fees Payable by Qualifying Lenders) (Amendment) Regulations 2014 (revoked)

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

Statutory Instruments

# 2014 No. 485

Social Security

# The Social Security (Fees Payable by Qualifying Lenders) (Amendment) Regulations 2014 (revoked)F1

Made

3rd March 2014

Laid before Parliament

10th March 2014

Coming into force

1st April 2014

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

F1Instrument revoked (1.4.2017) by The Social Security (Fees Payable by Qualifying Lenders) (Amendment) Regulations 2017 (S.I. 2017/270), regs. 1, 4, **Sch.**
EXHIBIT 32

                           CERTIFICATION 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 Quarterly Report of Kirlin Holding Corp. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the undersigned,
in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

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

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



Dated: August 16, 2004                  /s/ David O. Lindner
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        David O. Lindner
                                        Chief Executive Officer


Dated: August 16, 2004                  /s/ Barry E. Shapiro
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Barry E. Shapiro
                                        Chief Financial Officer
esph_ex104.htm


Exhibit 10.4







Summary of Charles Vinick Employment Arrangement


 







Effective August 1, 2010, Charles Vinick was appointed full-time Executive Chairman.  Mr. Vinick receives an annual salary of $225,000 and was granted 1,000,000 five-year non-qualified stock options exercisable at $0.82 per share.  Of the options: (i) 250,000 are fully vested and (ii) the balance vest in equal increments each June 30th and December 31st with the first vesting date being June 30, 2011 and the last vesting date being June 30, 2013.  Mr. Vinick will receive an annual bonus equivalent to one percent of the annual growth in EBITA year-over-year.
# CE2004078EN.01008201.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/82 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/82

---

(2004/C 78 E/0080)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2166/03

by Giuseppe Di Lello Finuoli (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(30 June 2003)

Subject:   Update regarding of the Italian State and Campania Regional Government funding of the programme contract presented by Agrifuturo

Subject:

In the Commission's reply of 5 June 2003 to Written Question P-1530/03 (1) (which was a follow-up to Written Question P-0126/03 (2)) it is stated that relevant information has been received from the Italian Government but has yet to be analysed.

1

2

Would the Commission state the eventual outcome of such analysis and indicate any action which it intends to take or which it has already taken?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(7 August 2003)

(7 August 2003)

The Commission has received information on the funding of the programme contract submitted by Agrifuturo Scarl, which it is still analysing.

Once the analysis is complete, one of two things will happen:

| — | if it appears that the terms and conditions of the relevant regulations have been met, the case will be closed, |
| --- | --- |

—

if it appears that the terms and conditions of the relevant regulations have been met, the case will be closed,

| — | if it appears that some of the terms and conditions of the relevant regulations have not been met, the Commission will open the investigation procedure provided for in Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty. |
| --- | --- |

—

if it appears that some of the terms and conditions of the relevant regulations have not been met, the Commission will open the investigation procedure provided for in Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty.

---

(1)  OJ C 58 E, 6.3.2004, p. 77.

1

(2)  OJ C 161 E, 10.7.2003, p. 180.

2

---
* 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. 07-11013

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

PATRICIA LEWIS CLAMON, also known as Patricia Lewis, also known as

Patricia Blevins

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:06-CR-165-3

Before GARZA, CLEMENT, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Patricia Lewis Clamon has moved for

leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738 (1967). Clamon has not filed a response. Our independent review

of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal.

Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 20, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-11013

2

excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED.

See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
James Norman RICHARDSON, Employee. v. PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, Inc. (fka Elf Aquitaine, fka Texas Gulf), Employer. ACE USA/ESIS, Zurich North America Insurance Co., Federal Insurance Company/Chubb Group, RSK Co. (k/n/a CNA), Specialty Risk Services, and Broadspire, Carriers.

No. 38P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Aug. 20, 2015.

Michael B. Pross, Salisbury, for Richardson, James Norman.

Winston L. Page, Jr., Raleigh, for Zurich North America Insurance Co.

Tracey L. Jones, Raleigh, for CNA (k/n/a).

J. Gregory Newton, Raleigh, for ACE USA/ESIS.

Jaye E. Bingham-Hinch, for ACE USA/ESIS.

Harmony Taylor, Charlotte, for Federal Insurance Company, et al.

John F. Morris, Charlotte, for Specialty Risk Services.

William A. Oden, III, Wilmington, for PCS Phosphate Company, Inc., et al.

Jordan A. Benton, Charlotte.

J. Timothy Wilson, Raleigh.

Lindsey L. Smith, Charlotte.

Leslie P. Lasher, Raleigh, for CNA (k/n/a).

M. Pierce Sandwith, Raleigh, for PCS Phosphate Company, Inc., et al.

Erin F. Taylor, Charlotte, for ACE USA/ESIS.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 20th of January 2015 by Defendants (PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. and Broadspire) 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 20th of August 2015."
In the Matter of Julio Zelaya SORTO.

No. 267P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Aug. 20, 2015.

Jodi Harrison, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Julio Zelaya Sorto, pro se.

Trey Robison, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Petitioner on the 30th of July 2015 in this matter for a writ of mandamus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Anson County:

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

(2004/C 33 E/212)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2076/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(24 June 2003)

Subject:   Funding for the protection of wolves in Russia in a natural environment by the establishment of extensive nature reserves such as cannot be established within the EU

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(18 August 2003)

The Commission knows that the wolf population of Russia is still sound and viable; nevertheless, it would like to point out that Spain and Romania also have viable wolf populations. Though the wolf favours forested areas, it can adapt to human-influenced environments and thus enhance its survival chances.

The Commission realises the difficulties in establishing and maintaining the wolf populations at their former levels in the Western parts of the Union. The Carpathian mountain range in the Accession Countries (Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania) still has viable wolf populations and the Commission endeavours to ensure their present and future well-being.

Wolf hunting practices in Russia leave much to be desired from a conservation point of view, especially as some of the federally funded regional conservation agencies provide special funding for this hunting. The Commission appreciates the work of the Central Forest Nature Reserve (Zapovednik) in Tver Oblast, with its research and ecotourism entrepreneurship programmes. In this context, the additional information provided by the Honourable Member is valuable.

The Community funding possibilities for Russian ecotourism/conservation projects are limited. The only Community funding possibility would be the TACIS programme. Under its rules, any project needs to fit into one of the agreed priority areas and needs to be approved by the Commission and the Russian Government in order to receive funding. Any Russian entity should address requests to the Director of the TACIS National Coordination Unit in the Russian Ministry of Economic Development and Trade, Ms Ganeyeva.

----
1... See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4.

COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 2-08-296-CV

ESSY MOAZAMI APPELLANT

V.

CACH, LLC APPELLEE

----------

FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF DENTON COUNTY

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

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

On July 17, 2008 and July 30, 2008, we notified appellant, in

accordance with rule of appellate procedure 42.3(c), that we would dismiss this

appeal unless the $175 filing fee was paid. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c).

Appellant has not paid the $175 filing fee. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5, 12.1(b).
2... See Supreme Court of Tex., Order Regarding Fees Charged in Civil

Cases in the Supreme Court and the Courts of Appeals and Before the Judicial

Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, Misc. Docket No. 07-9138 (Aug. 28, 2007)

(listing fees in courts of appeals).

2

Because appellant has failed to comply with a requirement of the rules of

appellate procedure and the Texas Supreme Court’s order of August 28, 2007,

2

we dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c), 43.2(f).

Appellant shall pay all costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue.

See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.4.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: CAYCE, C.J.; LIVINGSTON and DAUPHINOT, JJ. 

DELIVERED: August 21, 2008
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S FORM 10Q FOR THE PERIOD ENDED MARCH 30, 1998 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-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          20,924
<SECURITIES>                                    80,059
<RECEIVABLES>                                   20,395
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,622
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               123,322
<PP&E>                                          17,570
<DEPRECIATION>                                   8,058
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 133,243
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           30,787
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            16
<OTHER-SE>                                     102,440
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   133,243
<SALES>                                         17,051
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                25,072
<CGS>                                            1,204
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    6,249
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                18,677
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   715
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   4
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,256
<INCOME-TAX>                                       766
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                490
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       490
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .03
        

</TABLE>