alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT      32 **

**CERTIFICATIONS**

| Dated:                August 14, 2008 | By:    | /s/                Leonard Armato                         |
|---------------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------|
|                                  |   | Leonard                Armato                             |
|                                  |   | Chief                Executive Officer                    |
|                                  |   | (Principal                Executive Officer)              |
|                                  |   |                                                      |
|                                  |   |                                                      |
|                                  | By:    | /s/Tom                Torii                               |
|                                  |   | Tom                Torii                                  |
|                                  |   | Interim                Chief Financial Officer (Principal |
|                                  |   | Financial                Officer)                         |

----
# CE2004070EN.01025402.xml

| 20.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 70/254 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 70/254

---

(2004/C 70 E/275)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3314/03

by Peter Skinner (PSE) to the Commission

(3 November 2003)

Subject:   British Beef Imports into France

Subject:

In December 2001 the European Court of Justice ruled that a ban imposed by the French government on the import of British beef into the country was illegal. The Commission then recommended that France be held liable for substantial fines for non-compliance with the ECJ ruling.

With regard to this situation, could the Commission state whether France was held accountable for its actions and has any recompense since been paid? If France avoided the judgement passed down on them could the Commission then explain why this was the case and the amount in fines they should have paid?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(21 November 2003)

(21 November 2003)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written E-2871/02 by Mr Parish (1).

1

---

(1)  OJ C 222 E, 18.9.2003, p. 25.

1

---
STATE v. Bernard George LAMP, Jr.

No. 222A14-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Nov. 9, 2015.

Anne M. Gomez, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Lamp, Bernard George (Jr.).

Kathleen M. Joyce, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Lamp, Bernard George (Jr.).

Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Sarah M. Kirkman, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

Sarah Kirkman, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 6th of November 2015 by Defendant:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of November 2015."

Defendant shall have up to and including the 14th day of December 2015 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
STATE of North Carolina v. Thedford Roy RORIE, Jr.

No. 311P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 18, 2016.

Andrew DeSimone, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Rorie, Jr., Thedford Roy.

John F. Oates, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

James R. O'Neill, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by State of NC on the 4th of September 2015 for Writ of Supersedeas of the judgment of the Court of Appeals, 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 13th of April 2016."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 22nd of September 2015 by State of NC 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 13th of April 2016."
# C_2008142EN.01002401.xml

| 7.6.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/24

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 22 April 2008 — Casa Editorial El Tiempo v OHIM — Instituto Nacional de Meteorología (EL TIEMPO)

(Case T-233/06) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition - Application for Community word mark EL TIEMPO - Earlier national word marks TELETIEMPO - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

(2008/C 142/42)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Casa Editorial El Tiempo, SA (Santafé de Bogotá, Colombia) (represented by: A. Fernández Lerroux and A. Fernández Fernández-Pacheco, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. García Murillo, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Instituto Nacional de Meteorología (Madrid, Spain)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 June 2006 (Case R 760/2005-4) concerning opposition proceedings between the Instituto Nacional de Meteorología and Casa Editoria El Tiempo, SA.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Casa Editorial El Tiempo to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Casa Editorial El Tiempo to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 261, 28.10.2006.

1

---
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 6 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                  S. 6

To enhance the security of the United States by reducing the dependence 
 of the United States on foreign and unsustainable energy sources and 
          the risks of global warming, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 4, 2007

   Mr. Reid (for himself, Mr. Bingaman, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Schumer, Mr. 
 Lieberman, Mr. Lautenberg, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Leahy, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. 
  Webb, Mr. Salazar, and Mr. Menendez) introduced the following bill; 
     which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To enhance the security of the United States by reducing the dependence 
 of the United States on foreign and unsustainable energy sources and 
          the risks of global warming, and for other purposes.

    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 ``National Energy and Environmental 
Security Act of 2007''.

SEC. 2. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

    It is the sense of Congress that Congress should enact, and the 
President should sign, legislation to enhance the security of the 
United States by reducing the dependence of the United States on 
foreign and unsustainable energy sources and the risks of global 
warming by--
            (1) requiring reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases;
            (2) diversifying and expanding the use of secure, 
        efficient, and environmentally-friendly energy supplies and 
        technologies;
            (3) reducing the burdens on consumers of rising energy 
        prices;
            (4) eliminating tax giveaways to large energy companies; 
        and
            (5) preventing energy price gouging, profiteering, and 
        market manipulation.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     Exhibit 27.7
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           3-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       Mar-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                            Jun-30-1996
<CASH>                                      6,923
<SECURITIES>                                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                              28,029
<ALLOWANCES>                                2,299
<INVENTORY>                                 2,539
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           37,831
<PP&E>                                     76,638
<DEPRECIATION>                             18,399
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             98,660
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      24,338
<BONDS>                                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           0
<PREFERRED>                                     0
<COMMON>                                      390
<OTHER-SE>                                 44,796
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               98,660
<SALES>                                    29,229
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           29,229
<CGS>                                      21,277
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              21,277
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            4,219
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              365
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            600
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             3,213
<INCOME-TAX>                                1,204
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         2,009
<DISCONTINUED>                                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 0
<CHANGES>                                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                2,009
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                0.10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                0.09
        


</TABLE>
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Treasury

###### Internal Revenue Service 

          - 26 CFR Part 31 
          - [REG-104143-05] 
          - RIN 1545-BE32 

# AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. 

# ACTION:

Correction to notice of proposed rulemaking. 

      ( print page 54681)    

# SUMMARY:

                        This document corrects a notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-104143-05) that was published in the                         **Federal Register**                         on Friday, August 26, 2005 (70 FR 50228). The document contains regulations relating to payments made for service not in the course of the employer's trade or business, for domestic service in a private home of the employer, for agricultural labor, and for service performed as a home worker within the meaning of section 3121(d)(3)(C) of the Internal Revenue Code.                     

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Paul Carlino, (202) 622-0047 (not a toll-free number). 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

## Background 

The notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-104143-05) that is the subject of this correction is under section 3121(d)(3)(C) of the Internal Revenue Code. 

## Need for Correction 

As published, REG-104143-05 contains an error that may prove to be misleading and is in need of clarification. 

## Correction of Publication 

Accordingly, the notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-104143-05), that was the subject of FR Doc. #05-16944, is corrected as follows: 

§ 31.3121(a)-2 

On page 50231, column 2, § 31.3121(a)-2, paragraph (d)(2), third line from the bottom of the paragraph, the language “paragraph (d)(2), see § 31.3102-1 in” is corrected to read “paragraph (d)(2), see § 31.3121(a)-2 in“.

Cynthia Grigsby, 

Acting Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration). 

[FR Doc. 05-18468 Filed 9-15-05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
# C_2009055EN.01002501.xml

| 7.3.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 55/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 55/25

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 19 December 2008 — Bomba Energia Getränkevertriebs v OHIM — Eckes-Granini (Bomba)

(Case T-372/06) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate)

(2009/C 55/45)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Bomba Energia Getränkevertriebs GmbH (Rohrbach, Austria) (represented by: A. Kockläuner, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: M. Kicia, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Eckes-Granini Group GmbH, formerly Eckes-Granini GmbH & Co. KG (Nieder-Olm, Germany) (represented by: W. Berlit, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 October 2006 (Case R 184/2005-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Eckes-Granini GmbH & Co. KG and Bomba Energia Getränkevertriebs GmbH

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | Bomba Energia Getränkevertriebs GmbH and Eckes-Granini Group GmbH are ordered to bear their own costs and are also ordered to pay half of the costs of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) each. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Bomba Energia Getränkevertriebs GmbH and Eckes-Granini Group GmbH are ordered to bear their own costs and are also ordered to pay half of the costs of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) each.

---

(1)  OJ C 42, 24.2.2007.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000931755
<NAME> AEI INCOME & GROWTH FUND XXI LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                       2,328,791
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   72,704
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,401,495
<PP&E>                                      17,049,956
<DEPRECIATION>                               (470,623)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              18,980,828
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          588,815
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  18,392,013
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                18,980,828
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               452,487
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  193,513
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                428,911
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            428,911
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   428,911
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    17.82
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    17.82
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 23.01

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the  incorporation  by reference in  Registration  Statement  Nos.
33-78660,  33-80702 and 33-80704 of MotivePower  Industries,  Inc.  (formerly MK
Rail Corporation) on Form S-8 of our reports dated February 10, 1997 (except for
Note 7, as to which the date is  February  27, 1997 and Note 18, as to which the
date is  March  6,  1997),  appearing  in this  Annual  Report  on Form  10-K of
MotivePower Industries, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 1996.



DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
March 13, 1997
* 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. 07-51003

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOSHUA NEHEMIAH REYNA, also known as Joshua Nemiah Reyna

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 6:05-CR-220-ALL

Before DAVIS, GARZA and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Joshua Nehemiah Reyna appeals the mandatory consecutive 60-month

and 300-month sentences imposed following his guilty-plea convictions for

possession of a firearm during a drug-trafficking offense. Reyna argues that the

sentences are cruel and unusual in violation of the Eighth Amendment because

they are grossly disproportionate to the severity of the offenses committed.

Because Reyna failed to object on this ground in the district court, review

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

September 15, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-51003

2

is for plain error. See United States v. Howard, 220 F.3d 645, 647 (5th Cir.

2000). In comparison to the life sentence imposed in Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S.

263 (1980), on a non-violent criminal pursuantto a recidivist statute, and the 30-

year sentence imposed in United States v. Gonzales, 121 F.3d 928, 943-44 (5th

Cir. 1997), on a non-habitual offender convicted of using or carrying a firearm

during a drug-trafficking offense, the sentences imposed on Reyna are not

grossly disproportionate to his offenses. See Gonzales, 121 F.3d at 943;

McGruder v. Puckett, 954 F.2d 313, 316 (5th Cir. 1992). 

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
In the Matter of H.L.S., A Minor Child.

No. COA15-487.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Feb. 16, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Affirmed.
Joseph A. MALDJIAN and Mariana Maldjian, Plaintiffs, v. Charles R. BLOOMQUIST, Caroline Bloomquist, Sidney Hawes, and Kate Hawes, Defendants.

No. COA15-729.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Feb. 2, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Dismissed.
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________

No. 02

- 22

- 00397

- CV

___________________________

Original Proceeding

Denton County, Texas

Before Kerr, Bassel, and Wallach, JJ.

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion 

### I N RE 

### A LISON 

### M AGUIRE



### , K ERI 

### C ARUTHERS



### , T RACY 

### R UNNELS



### , AND



### E MILY 

### M EISNER 

### , Relator s2 MEMORANDUM OPINION

The court has considered relator s’ petition for writ of inju n ction and motion

for emergency injunctive relief , respondents ’ responses

, 1 and relators ’ reply, and is of

the opinion that relief should be denied. Accordingly, relator s’ petition for writ of

injunction and motion for emergency injunctive relief are denied.

Per Curiam

Deliver e d : October 1 8 , 2022

1 All other pending motions are moot.
In the Matter of M.B.B., a Minor Juvenile.

No. COA15-983.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

April 5, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3679 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3679

To amend the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to prohibition 
   on payment of bonuses and pay increases for executives of a State 
    Exchange funded through Federal grants, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            December 9, 2013

  Mr. Gardner (for himself and Mr. Coffman) introduced the following 
    bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to prohibition 
   on payment of bonuses and pay increases for executives of a State 
    Exchange funded through Federal grants, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON PAYMENT OF BONUSES AND PAY INCREASES FOR 
              EXCHANGE EXECUTIVES.

    Section 1311(a) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 
(42 U.S.C. 18031(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
paragraph:
            ``(6) Prohibition on payment of bonuses and pay increases 
        for exchange executives.--The Secretary shall provide that no 
        funds under a grant under this section may be used for a bonus 
        or pay increase (beyond the level of compensation in effect as 
        of October 1, 2013) for a chief executive officer, chief 
        information officer, chief operating officer, or similar 
        executive with respect to the operation of an Exchange on or 
        after October 1, 2013.''.
                                 <all>
```