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

<ARTICLE>                                      9

<S>                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          1525869
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          2709142
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                      0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                      0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     4357620
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                            93788
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                              93050
<LOANS>                                        35970457
<ALLOWANCE>                                       88101
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 46176432
<DEPOSITS>                                     33931211
<SHORT-TERM>                                          0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              318430
<LONG-TERM>                                     5677863
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<COMMON>                                           3317
<OTHER-SE>                                      6245611
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 46176432
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 1420792
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                 66321
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                 199600
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                1686713
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               738755
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               904615
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            782098
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      3500
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                    0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  625859
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  206555
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       129478
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                     129478
<EPS-BASIC>                                      0.46
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      0.46
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                     0.07
<LOANS-NON>                                      179000
<LOANS-PAST>                                          0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                      0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                       0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                  86288
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      1744
<RECOVERIES>                                         57
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                 88101
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                   0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                           88101



</TABLE>
# CE2004070EN.01019802.xml

| 20.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 70/198 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 70/198

---

(2004/C 70 E/214)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3022/03

by Anna Karamanou (PSE) to the Commission

(14 October 2003)

Subject:   Funding of research into accident prevention

Subject:

According to data produced by the European Accident Prevention Network, one third of fatalities in developed countries are caused by accidents, and young people are particularly affected.

In Greece, the number and frequency of fatal accidents of various types stand at extremely high levels.

In spite of this extremely worrying situation, the Commission recently cut the appropriations allocated to research into and prevention of accidents in European Union countries by 30 %, with the result that it has become considerably more difficult for the competent bodies to carry out their work.

Will the Commission support the proposals and requests made by the European Accident Prevention Network? What further steps will it take to reduce the number of fatal accidents and improve public safety?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(14 November 2003)

(14 November 2003)

The Commission did not recently cut the appropriations allocated to research into and prevention of accidents in the Union by 30 %.

The proposals for financial support regarding accident and injury prevention received in the framework of the 2003 funding round of the Community public health programme are currently being evaluated. A decision on selection of projects to be financed is expected shortly. Several projects dealing with accidents and injuries have been presented in the selection process.

---
# CE2004070EN.01014802.xml

| 20.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 70/148 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 70/148

---

(2004/C 70 E/154)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2862/03

by Anne Andre-Leonard (ELDR) to the Commission

(22 September 2003)

Subject:   Scientology's ‘European Public Affairs and Human Rights Office’

Subject:

The setting up of the Church of Scientology's European Public Affairs and Human Rights Office in Brussels, and its lobbying activities mean that there is a risk that the work of the European Institutions are confused with that of scientologists.

The latter avoid presenting themselves as members of the Church of Scientology, and use satellite organisations to infiltrate the European Institutions.

In this situation, how does the Commission handle firstly, the arrangements for selecting and accrediting scientologist sub-organisations, and secondly, scientologist lobbying?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(15 October 2003)

(15 October 2003)

The Commission has always adhered to the principle of open and transparent dialogue with all external parties without, however, entering into any registration or accreditation system.

This has been emphasised in several documents: the Communication ‘An open and structured dialogue between the Commission and special interest groups’ (1), the White Paper on Administrative Reform (2), White Paper on European Governance (3) and, the latest, Communication on general principles and minimum standards for consultation of interested parties (4). The Communication on consultation aims in particular at encouraging greater involvement of interested parties through a more transparent consultation process.

1

2

3

4

In this open functional framework, the civil society database Coneccs (5) (formerly the lobbies database), provides information on about 700 civil society organisations operating at European level. It is a voluntary information tool, in which the organisations can register themselves and update their information. To be included in the database organisations must fulfil some conditions of transparency and themselves provide information on their statutes and membership. This voluntary information is one basis on which the Commission can assess the civil society organisations asking to be included in the database. As the Coneccs database is intended only for information, inclusion in the directory does not constitute an accreditation or registration on the part of the Commission. Until now, the organisation mentioned in the question has not asked to be included in the Coneccs database.

5

---

(1)  OJ C 63, 5.3.1993.

1

(2)  COM(2000) 200 final.

2

(3)  COM(2001) 428 final.

3

(4)  COM(2002) 704 final.

4

(5)  http://europa.eu.int/comm/civil_society/coneccs/index_en.htm

5

---
i i i i i i

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-08-00337-CR

Kelly Marie OSOWIECKI,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 379th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2006-CR-4830

Honorable Bert Richardson, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Alma L. López, Chief Justice

Catherine Stone, Justice

Steven C. Hilbig, Justice

Delivered and Filed: August 29, 2008

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

Kelly Marie Osowiecki pleaded guilty or nolo contendere to a charge of robbery pursuant to

a plea bargain. On December 1, 2006, the trial court deferred Osowiecki’s adjudication and placed

her on community supervision for a period of five years. On April 10, 2008, the State filed a motion

to revoke Osowiecki’s community supervision and enter an adjudication of guilt, alleging four

violations of the terms of Osowiecki’s community supervision. A hearing on the motion to revoke

was held April 23, 2008. On April 24, 2008, the trial court signed an order styled “Termination of

Probation/Community Supervision,” which states:
04-08-00337-CR

-2-

FIVE (5) years Deferred Adjudication probation was granted on December 1, 2006,

expired on December 1, 2011, and is hereby terminated unsatisfactorily early.

On April 30, 2008, Osowiecki filed a pro se notice of appeal, stating that sentence was imposed on

April 23, 2008. The trial court appointed appellate counsel. 

A clerk’s record on CD-ROM has been filed. The record does not contain an order revoking

Osowiecki’s community supervision. Nor does it contain a judgment or any other document

reflecting that appellant has been adjudicated guilty of a crime or that any sentence has been assessed

or imposed. Instead, it appears the trial court terminated Osowiecki’s community supervision.

Subject to the provisions of Rule 25.2 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, a defendant

may appeal when he is initially placed on deferred adjudication community supervision. See Watson

v. State, 924 S.W.2d 711, 714 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996); Hargesheimer v. State, 182 S.W.3d 906

(Tex. Crim. App. 2006). Osowiecki did not file a timely appeal from the deferred adjudication order.

A defendant also has a right to appeal when his community supervision is revoked and he is

adjudicated guilty and sentenced. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 42.12 §§ 5(b), 23(b)

(Vernon Supp. 2008). However the record does not reflect Osowiecki’s community supervision was

revoked or that she was adjudicated guilty.

Accordingly, on June 27, 2008, we ordered appellant to file, no later than July 28, 2008, a

response showing why this appeal should not be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. We advised

appellant that if she failed to respond satisfactorily by the date ordered, the appeal would be

dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c). Appellant has not responded to our June 27, 2008.
04-08-00337-CR

-3-

We therefore dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. 

PER CURIAM

Do not publish
EXHIBIT 32


                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                         AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
                         ALL-AMERICAN SPORTPARK, INC.
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


     I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the Annual Report on
Form 10-QSB of All-American SportPark, Inc. for the quarter ending March 31,
2004:

     (1) 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 aspects, the financial condition and results of operations of All-
American SportPark, Inc.


Dated:  May 12, 2004




/s/ Ron Boreta
Ron Boreta
Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer) and
Principal Financial Officer



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to All-American SportPark, Inc.
and will be retained by All-American SportPark, Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission upon request.
STATE of North Carolina v. Teddy Rudolph KING.

No. 342P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Dec. 15, 2015.

Anne Bleyman, for King, Teddy Rudolph.

Rajeev K. Premakumar, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Jon David, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 6th of October 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 15th of December 2015."
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 888/2014 (repealed)Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 888/2014 of 14 August 2014 prohibiting the introduction into the Union of specimens            of certain species of wild fauna and flora (repealed)         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 888/2014                     

# of 14 August 2014

# prohibiting the introduction into the Union of specimens of certain species of wild fauna and flora (repealed)

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

Textual Amendments

F1Repealed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/736 of 7 May 2015 prohibiting the introduction into the Union of specimens of                                 certain species of wild fauna and flora.
ATKINS v. BLACK & DECKER.

No. COA08-912.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed March 17, 2009.

Certification Date April 6, 2009.

Appeal from NC Industrial Commission (I.C. NO. 339500).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
# CE2004070EN.01015301.xml

| 20.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 70/153 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 70/153

---

(2004/C 70 E/159)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2874/03

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(26 September 2003)

Subject:   Removal and retention of children's organs without parental consent

Subject:

Further to its answer to my question E-l666/03 (1), could the Commission indicate which Member States have yet to sign and ratify the United Nations Protocol on the prevention, suppression and punishment of trafficking in persons, which supplements the UN Convention on Transnational Organised Crime?

1

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(27 October 2003)

(27 October 2003)

According to the information provided by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) regarding the Protocol to prevent, suppress and punish trafficking in persons, especially women and children, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organised Crime (2). All Member States signed the Protocol in December 2000, but only Spain and France have ratified it.

2

---

(1)  OJ C 51 E, 26.2.2004, p. 122.

1

(2)  http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/crime_cicp_signatures_trafficking.html

2

---
# CE2004088EN.01035602.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/356 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/356

---

(2004/C 88 E/0362)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1580/03

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(8 May 2003)

Subject:   Data analyses of illegal drugs in the EU

Subject:

Further to the answer given to my written question E-0315/03 (1), is the Commission now satisfied that it has common definitions concerning data collection and analyses on illegal drug use?

1

If not, what actions are being undertaken to bring this about and when will they be complete?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(16 June 2003)

(16 June 2003)

The nature of data collection calls for continous efforts at the Community level as well as at Member State level in order to improve comparability and reliability. Work has been done in this regard under the public health programmes and by the Emcdda (European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction), in cooperation with the European Statistical System (ESS). These efforts will continue.

In addition the Council Recommendation on the prevention and reduction of risks associated with drug dependence, which is ready for adoption by the Council includes a range of measures which are relevant:

| — | developing and implementing adequate evaluation protocols for all drug prevention and risk reduction programmes; |
| --- | --- |

—

developing and implementing adequate evaluation protocols for all drug prevention and risk reduction programmes;

| — | establishing and implementing evaluation quality criteria, taking into account the Recommendations of the Emcdda; |
| --- | --- |

—

establishing and implementing evaluation quality criteria, taking into account the Recommendations of the Emcdda;

| — | organising standardised data-collection and information dissemination according to the Emcdda recommendations through the Reitox National Focal Points (2). |
| --- | --- |

—

organising standardised data-collection and information dissemination according to the Emcdda recommendations through the Reitox National Focal Points (2).

2

---

(1)  OJ C 51 E, 26.2.2004, p. 18.

1

(2)  The European Information Network on Drugs and Drug Addiction (Reitox) consists of one national focal point (NFP) set up in each of the 15 EU Member States and in Norway, and one at the European Commission. The role of a Focal point involves co-ordinating its national information centres to meet the EMCDDA's requirements for a set of core data, annual National Reports on the drug situation in each Member State and a national information network (http://www.emcdda.org/partners/nfp.shtml).

2

---
STATE v. PRUITT.

No. COA08-412.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed February 17, 2009.

Certification Date March 9, 2009.

Appeal from Rutherford (07CRS3312).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
STATE v. Edward WILLIAMS, III.

No. 318P15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Sept. 24, 2015.

Edward Williams, III, Marion, for Williams, Edward.

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

Gary W. Frank, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 8th of September 2015 by Defendant for Belated Appeal:

> "Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 24th of September 2015."
# CE2004088EN.01011202.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/112 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/112

---

(2004/C 88 E/0118)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2744/03

by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission

(11 September 2003)

Subject:   Slovakia

Subject:

Can the Commission confirm that the Bratislava authorities refuse to allow the town of Kosice to be linked by motorway to the nearby Hungarian motorway network (and thereby connect easily to the Austrian and other networks) until a motorway via the north of Slovakia has been completed linking Kosice to Bratislava?

If so, is this because the Bratislava authorities wish to hinder close connections between southern Slovakia, with its Hungarian-speaking minority, and Hungary? Does the Commission consider such an attitude to be compatible with the spirit of a Europe without internal frontiers which is implicit in EU membership?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(16 October 2003)

(16 October 2003)

Concerning the decision of the Slovak Government on the construction of a motorway connecting Kosice to Bratislava, the Commission has taken note of the remarks of the Honourable Member. The Commission can only confirm that the above motorway as well as the road between Kosice and the Hungarian border have been identified as forming part of the trans-European transport (TEN-T) network and that the consequent priority that will be given to these routes has been agreed between Slovakia and the Union. Within this framework it is up to the national authorities to establish their own priorities and to propose projects for funding to the Commission.

---
In the Matter of S.K., G.K.

No. COA15-561.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Nov. 17, 2015.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7106

JOHN HENRY,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN, PERRY CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Florence. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. 

(4:13-cv-01868-MGL)

Submitted: October 16, 2014 Decided: October 22, 2014

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Henry, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior 

Assistant Attorney General, Alphonso Simon, Jr., Assistant 

Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

John Henry seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

adopting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and 

dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition as barred by the 

statute of limitations. We dismiss the appeal for lack of 

jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. 

Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of 

the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, 

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends 

the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the 

appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely 

filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional 

requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket 

on June 17, 2014. The notice of appeal was filed on July 21, 

2014.* Because Henry failed to file a timely notice of appeal or 

to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we 

dismiss the appeal and deny as moot Henry’s motion for a 

certificate of appealability. We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 

 * For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date 

appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could 

have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to 

the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 

276 (1988).
3

in the materials before this court and argument would not aid 

the decisional process.

DISMISSED
CITY OF ASHEVILLE v. STATE of North Carolina and County Of Buncombe, et al.

No. 244P07-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

February 5, 2009.

Robert W. Oast, Jr., Daniel G. Clodfelter, T. Randolph Perkins, Mark A. Nebrig, Charlotte, Jeffrey M. Young, Morrisville, for City of Asheville.

Mark A. Davis, W. Dale Talbert, Special Deputy Attorney Generals, for State of NC.

Robert B. Long, W. Scott Jones, Asheville, for County of Buncombe.

Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ___, 665 S.E.2d 103.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by the Plaintiff on the 23rd day of September 2008 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30, and the motions to dismiss the appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question filed by the Defendant (State of NC

*686and County of Buncombe), the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the motions to dismiss the appeal is

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th day of February 2009."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 23rd day of September 2008 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 was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th day of February 2009."

TIMMONS-GOODSON, J., recused.