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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         276,131
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               13,897,048
<ALLOWANCES>                                   420,543
<INVENTORY>                                 17,077,593
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            33,403,044
<PP&E>                                      12,003,071
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,711,508
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              43,125,812
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       14,626,856
<BONDS>                                     22,403,511
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        67,848
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,846,425
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                43,125,812
<SALES>                                     15,199,025
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            15,199,025
<CGS>                                       12,742,126
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               12,742,126
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,726,933
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                95,190
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             511,231
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (780,671)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (195,518)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (585,153)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (585,153)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.09)
        

</TABLE>
NC ASS'N OF EDUCATORS, INC., et al. v. STATE of NC.

No. 228A15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Sept. 8, 2015.

Melissa L. Trippe, Special Deputy Attorney General, for The State of North Carolina.

Burton Craige, Raleigh, Attorney at Law, for North Carolina Association of Educators, Inc., et al.

Narendra Ghosh, Chapel Hill, Attorney at Law, for North Carolina Association of Educators, Inc., et al.

Philip A. Hostak, Attorney at Law, for North Carolina Association of Educators, Inc., et al.

John F. Maddrey, Solicitor General, for The State of North Carolina.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 3rd of September 2015 by Defendant:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th of September 2015."
# C_2008051EN.01002901.xml

| 23.2.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/29

---

Order of the Court of 6 November 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany)) — Stahlwerk Ergste Westig GmbH v Finanzamt Düsseldorf-Mettmann

(Case C-415/06) (1)

1

(First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Answer clearly able to be deduced from case-law - Free movement of capital - Taxation on income - Company having permanent establishments in a non-Member State - Account taken of losses incurred by those establishments)

(2008/C 51/48)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof (Germany)

Parties

Applicant: Stahlwerk Ergste Westig GmbH

Applicant:

Defendant: Finanzamt Düsseldorf-Mettmann

Defendant:

Re:

Preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof — Interpretation of Articles 56 EC, 57(1) EC and 58 EC — Deduction from the taxable profits of a German company of losses resulting from the activity of a permanent establishment in a non-member country — Deduction refused on the basis of a bilateral double taxation convention concluded with that non-member country

Operative part of the order

A national system of taxation under which a company having its head office in a Member State, when determining its results, cannot deduct losses incurred by an establishment in a non-Member State fundamentally affects the exercise of the freedom of establishment within the meaning of Articles 43 EC to 48 EC. Those provisions cannot be relied upon in a situation involving such an establishment in a non-Member State.

---

(1)  OJ C 326, 31.12.2006.

1

---
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber)

18 July 2007

Case C-213/06 P

**European Agency for Reconstruction (EAR)**

**v**

**Georgios Karatzoglou**

(Appeals – Temporary staff – Termination of contract)

**Appeal:**against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 23 February 2006 in Case T-471/04 *Karatzoglou* v *EAR* [2006] ECR-SC I-A-2-000 and II-A-2-000, seeking to have that judgment set aside.

**Held:**the judgment is set aside and the case referred back to the Court of First Instance.

**Summary**

*Officials – Principles – Protection of legitimate expectations*

*(Conditions of employment of other servants, Arts 47 to 50)*

The fact that the amendment of a temporary servant’s contract created an ambiguous situation, which could have given the impression
that the administration had restricted its power under Articles 47 to 50 of the Conditions of employment of other servants
to terminate the contract, does not give rise to a legitimate expectation on the part of that temporary servant as to the
duration of his contract. An uncertain contractual situation cannot form the basis of precise assurances on the part of the
administration, which are necessary to give rise to legitimate expectations.

Nor, in that respect, is it possible to rely on the principle to the effect that the weaker party to an employment contract
can expect vague provisions of the contract to be interpreted in his favour. Factors linked to a temporary servant’s contractual
situation in relation to his employer cannot make up for the absence of one of the preconditions for establishing the existence
of a legitimate expectation.
FRIDAY INVESTMENTS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. BALLY TOTAL FITNESS OF THE MID-ATLANTIC, INC. f/k/a Bally Total Fitness of the Southeast, Inc. f/k/a/ Holiday Health Clubs of the Southeast, Inc. as successor-in-interest to Bally Total Fitness Corporation; and Bally Total Fitness Holdings Corporation, Defendants.

No. COA15-822.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

June 7, 2016.

**CASE REPORTED WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3668 

To amend the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Extension Act of 2007 to 

make permanent the exemption of grandfathered long-term care hospitals 

from the Medicare 25 percent threshold payment adjustment. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 5, 2013 

Mr. KILDEE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Extension 

Act of 2007 to make permanent the exemption of grandfathered long-term care hospitals from the Medicare 25 

percent threshold payment adjustment. 

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


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3668 IH

1 SECTION 1. MAKING PERMANENT THE EXEMPTION OF 

2 GRANDFATHERED LONG-TERM CARE HOS3 PITALS FROM THE MEDICARE 25 PERCENT 

4 PATIENT THRESHOLD PAYMENT ADJUST5 MENT. 

6 Section 114(c)(1) of the Medicare, Medicaid, and 

7 SCHIP Extension Act of 2007 (42 U.S.C. 1395ww note), 

8 as amended by section 3106 of Public Law 111–148, is 

9 further amended— 

10 (1) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), 

11 by striking ‘‘for a 5-year period’’; and 

12 (2) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ‘‘for a 5- 

13 year period,’’ before ‘‘section 412.536’’. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-90,066-01

EX PARTE DAVID KEITH SAULS, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 58646-B-1 IN THE 78 DISTRICT COURT TH

FROM WICHITA COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of evading arrest

and sentenced to twenty-five years’ imprisonment. The Second Court of Appeals affirmed his

conviction. Sauls v. State, No. 02-17-00224-CR (Tex. App.—Ft. Worth June 28, 2018).

Applicant contends that his appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance because counsel

failed to timely notify Applicant that his conviction had been affirmed or that he could file a pro

se petition for discretionary review.

Applicant has alleged facts that, if true, might entitle him to relief. Strickland v. Washington,
2

466 U.S. 668 (1984); Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). In these

circumstances, additional facts are needed. As we held in Ex parte Rodriguez, 334 S.W.2d 294, 294

(Tex. Crim. App. 1960), the trial court is the appropriate forum for findings of fact. The trial court

shall order appellate counsel to respond to Applicant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel on

appeal. The trial court may use any means set out in TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07, § 3(d).

If the trial court elects to hold a hearing, it shall determine whether Applicant is indigent. 

If Applicant is indigent and wishes to be represented by counsel, the trial court shall appoint an

attorney to represent Applicant at the hearing. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 26.04. 

The trial court shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law as to whether Applicant’s

appellate counsel timely informed Applicant that his conviction had been affirmed. The trial court

shall also make any other findings of fact and conclusions of law that it deems relevant and

appropriate to the disposition of Applicant’s claim for habeas corpus relief.

This application will be held in abeyance until the trial court has resolved the fact issues. The

issues shall be resolved within 90 days of this order. A supplemental transcript containing all

affidavits and interrogatories or the transcription of the court reporter’s notes from any hearing or

deposition, along with the trial court’s supplemental findings of fact and conclusions of law, shall

be forwarded to this Court within 120 days of the date of this order. Any extensions of time must

be requested by the trial court and shall be obtained from this Court.

Filed: July 24, 2019

Do not publish
BATTS v. BATTS.

No. COA08-522.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed February 17, 2009.

Certification Date March 9, 2009.

Appeal from Wilson (01CVS1375).

Case reported without published opinion. Reversed.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 17, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136236 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

MARGARET BRADDOCK,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

Justices 

v SC: 136236 

 COA: 278982 

Saginaw CC: 06-060182-AV 

JGR, INC., d/b/a RPM AUTO 

SALES COMPANY, INC.,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 5, 2008 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of 

granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for 

consideration as on leave granted. See MCL 445.1862(1), which provides that “[a] 

regulated lender is not liable for a violation of this act if the regulated lender has fully 

complied with the federal Truth in Lending Act, 15 USC 1601, et seq. (“TILA”) and 

Mourning v Family Publication Svcs, Inc, 411 US 356; 93 S Ct 1652; 36 L Ed 2d 318 

(1973), and other federal case law construing TILA’s definition of “finance charge.” 

s0910 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

September 17, 2008 

 Clerk
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 688/2014Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 688/2014 of 20 June 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 688/2014                     

# of 20 June 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, 20 June 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.
State v. Charles Everette Hinton

449P11-13

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 9, 2016

Charles E. Hinton, For Hinton, Charles Everette.

Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, For State of N.C.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 11th of February 2016 by Petitioner to Take Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of June 2016."
Order entered May 2 3 , 2014

In The



## Court of Appeals

**Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

No. 05

- 14

- 00370

- CV

GENA MARCELLA MERCAD ANTE , ET AL., Appellant s

V.

ZLH LC, INC. F/K/A Z ALE LIPSHY UNIVERSIT Y HOSPITAL, INC., Appellee

On Appeal from the 95th Judi cial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 10

- 15882



### O RDER

We GRANT appellants’ May 22, 2014 unopposed motion for an extension of time to file

a brief. Appellants shall file their brief on or before July 7, 2014.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG

- MI ERS

JUSTICE
# C_2008092EN.01002801.xml

| 12.4.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 92/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 92/28

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 31 January 2008 — Aluminium Silicon Mill Products v Commission

(Case T-151/06) (1)

1

(Dumping - Reimbursement of anti-dumping duties - Annulment of the regulation imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty - No need to adjudicate - Rules governing costs)

(2008/C 92/56)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Aluminium Silicon Mill Products GmbH (Zug, Switzerland) (represented by: L. Ruessmann and A. Willems, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. Stancanelli and T. Scharf, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 1183 final of 3 April 2006 rejecting in part the applications for reimbursement of anti-dumping duties levied on imports of silicon originating in Russia

Operative part of the order

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

1.

There is no need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | The Commission is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Commission is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 178, 29.7.2006.

1

---
# CE2004088EN.01003301.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/33

---

(2004/C 88 E/0035)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1471/03

by Herman Schmid (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(30 April 2003)

Subject:   Prisoners at Guantanamo Bay

Subject:

The prisoners at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba are in a legal vacuum. They are being deprived of the human right to be defended in court. The US Administration has refused to designate them as prisoners of war, a status that would entitle them to immunity from prosecution for many acts committed during war. The US Administration contends that the prisoners are ‘unlawful combatants’, placing them in legal limbo.

Human rights organisations and some countries have criticised the US for not allowing prisoners access to a civilian court.

What action is the European Union taking to ensure that its captured citizens in Guantanamo Bay enjoy the right to be defended in court?

Does the European Union accept the prisoners' new status as ‘unlawful combatants’ in the light of the Geneva Convention?

Does the EU recognise any circumstances under which the use of unlawful methods, such as detaining people in prisons for an unlimited period of time, is justified as part of the war against terrorism?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(22 May 2003)

(22 May 2003)

As regards specific action in favour of the legal rights of Union citizens detained in Guantanamo Bay, the Commission notes that responsibility for any such action must rest with the relevant Member State.

With respect to the status, treatment and length of detention of prisoners, the Union has consistently underlined (notably in the United Nations Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR) and the UN General Assembly Third Committee) that efforts to combat terrorism must be conducted in full respect for the rule of law, human rights, fundamental freedoms and humanitarian law. Moreover, in its statement on ‘Human Rights in the World’ at the 59th CHR 2003, the Union emphasised that anti-terrorist measures must be consistent with the unconditional prohibition of all forms of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment ‘at all times and everywhere’. The unqualified nature of the Union's position demonstrates that the Union does not acknowledge any justification for derogating from respect for human rights whilst fighting terrorism in any circumstances.

At the 59th CHR, the Union also supported the adoption of the Mexican Resolution on protecting human rights when countering terrorism which includes provision for the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to examine the question of respect for human rights when fighting terrorism and to provide recommendations and advice on States' obligations in this regard.

The twice-yearly EU-United States troika dialogue on human rights provides the opportunity for discussions on human rights' concerns and, as the Union's Annual Report on human rights for 2002 notes, this has afforded the Union the opportunity to raise the issue of the treatment of detainees in Guantanamo.

---
STATE of North Carolina v. Candace Nichelle McCULLOUGH.

No. COA15-353.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

April 5, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

No Error.
EXHIBIT 32.1


      In connection with the Annual Report of BPC Holding Corporation and Berry
Plastics Corporation (the "Registrants") on Form 10-K for the year ended
January 1, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), I, Ira G. Boots, the President and Chief Executive
Officer of the Registrants, certify, 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 containing the financial statements fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrants.


/s/ Ira G. Boots
-----------------------------
Ira G. Boots
President and Chief Executive Officer

Date: March 22, 2005
# C_2008022EN.01000902.xml

| 26.1.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 22/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 22/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 22 November 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil — Spain) — Alfredo Nieto Nuño v Leonci Monlleó Franquet

(Case C-328/06) (1)

1

(Trade marks - Directive 89/104/EEC - Article 4(2)(d) - ‘Well-known’ marks in a Member State within the meaning of Article 6 bis of the Paris Convention - Knowledge of the trade mark - Geographical area)

(2008/C 22/17)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Mercantil

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Alfredo Nieto Nuño

Applicant:

Defendant: Leonci Monlleó Franquet

Defendant:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Juzgado de lo Mercantil — Interpretation of Article 4 of Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1) — Meaning of ‘well known’ — Whether knowledge and use may be confined to a limited territory, such as an autonomous community, a region, an area or a city, depending on the goods or services concerned and the public for whom the mark is intended

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(2)(d) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks is to be interpreted as meaning that the earlier trade mark must be well known throughout the territory of the Member State of registration or in a substantial part of it.

---

(1)  OJ C 237, 30.9.2006.

1

---