alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# CE2004088EN.01045601.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/456 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/456

---

(2004/C 88 E/0467)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3247/03

by Baroness Sarah Ludford (ELDR) to the Commission

(28 October 2003)

Subject:   Annual report on Turkey

Subject:

Will the Commission address the following urgent questions in its annual report on Turkey's progress towards meeting EU accession criteria due on 5 November:

| 1. | Do the Host Government Agreements for the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline breach the terms of Turkey's Accession Partnership by moving away from the ‘acquis communautaire’ and the prospect of implementing the Copenhagen criteria? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Do the Host Government Agreements for the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline breach the terms of Turkey's Accession Partnership by moving away from the ‘acquis communautaire’ and the prospect of implementing the Copenhagen criteria?

| 2. | Does this project potentially infringe the human rights and minority rights of the people living along the pipeline route in Turkey, such as through the expropriation of land without proper compensation? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does this project potentially infringe the human rights and minority rights of the people living along the pipeline route in Turkey, such as through the expropriation of land without proper compensation?

| 3. | What is the potential environmental impact of the project, and has a proper environmental impact assessment been carried out? |
| --- | --- |

3.

What is the potential environmental impact of the project, and has a proper environmental impact assessment been carried out?

---
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3760 

To provide for the expedited approval by the Secretary of Energy of liquefied 

natural gas exports, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 12, 2013 

Mr. POE of Texas introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee 

on Foreign Affairs, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 

Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within 

the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To provide for the expedited approval by the Secretary of 

Energy of liquefied natural gas exports, and for other 

purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Export American Nat5 ural Gas Act of 2013’’. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3760 IH

1 SEC. 2. LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS EXPORT APPROVAL. 

2 Section 3 of the Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717b) 

3 is amended by adding at the end the following new sub4 sections: 

5 ‘‘(g)(1) For purposes of subsection (a), the Secretary 

6 shall approve or deny an application for approval of the 

7 export of liquefied natural gas, whether through an on8 shore or offshore terminal, not later than 60 days after 

9 the later of— 

10 ‘‘(A) the Secretary receiving a completed appli11 cation; and 

12 ‘‘(B) the applicant entering into a contract with 

13 a customer for the liquefied natural gas proposed to 

14 be exported. 

15 ‘‘(2) If the Secretary has not approved or denied an 

16 application by the deadline established under paragraph 

17 (1), the application shall be deemed to have been ap18 proved. 

19 ‘‘(3) This subsection shall not apply to an application 

20 for export to a nation to which such export is prohibited 

21 by law. 

22 ‘‘(h) Authorization shall be provided under subsection 

23 (a) separately from and simultaneously with authorization 

24 required from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

25 or the Maritime Administration, as applicable.’’. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 3760 IH

1 SEC. 3. REPORT ON GLOBAL EXPORTS OF NATURAL GAS 

2 PRODUCTION. 

3 Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment 

4 of this Act, the Secretary of State shall submit to Con5 gress a report on the following: 

6 (1) The economic policies of foreign countries 

7 with natural gas resources and reserves as such poli8 cies relate to the development and production of 

9 their natural gas resources and reserves and the ex10 tent and status of their natural gas resources and 

11 reserves. 

12 (2) The potential to export the natural gas pro13 duction of such foreign countries to the global mar14 ket and the impact of the export of such natural gas 

15 production on the global market. 

16 (3) A description of actions taken by the United 

17 States Government to foster natural gas exports to 

18 foreign countries that may have an interest in im19 porting natural gas from the United States. 

Æ 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1

                      PROJECT SOFTWARE & DEVELOPMENT, INC.

              STATEMENT RE COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS (LOSS) PER SHARE

                                     Type of Security

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
COMPANY, FOR THE YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30,
1995:(in thousands, except share and per share data)         Primary      Fully Diluted
                                                            -----------    -----------
<S>                                                         <C>            <C>
Weighted average common shares outstanding ..........         8,530,882      8,530,882
Common stock equivalents ............................           314,864        329,420
                                                            -----------    -----------
                                                              8,845,746      8,860,302
                                                            -----------    -----------
Net income ..........................................       $     5,629    $     5,629
Net income per share ................................       $      0.64    $      0.64

COMPANY, FOR THE YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30,
 1996:(in thousands, except share and per share data)
Weighted average common shares outstanding ..........         9,602,710      9,602,710
Common stock equivalents ............................           449,198        481,571
                                                            -----------    -----------
                                                             10,051,908     10,084,281
                                                            -----------    -----------
Net income ..........................................       $    10,046    $    10,046
Net income per share ................................       $      1.00    $      1.00
COMPANY, FOR THE YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30,
1997:(in thousands, except share and per share data)
Weighted average common shares outstanding ..........         9,787,144      9,787,144
Common stock equivalents ............................           277,124        290,434
                                                            -----------    -----------
                                                             10,064,268     10,077,578
                                                            -----------    -----------
Net income ..........................................       $    11,570    $    11,570
Net income per share ................................       $      1.15    $      1.15
</TABLE>
NO. 07-08-0175-CR

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL B

	SEPTEMBER 23, 2008

	______________________________

	EDWIN DEGRAFF,

									Appellant

	V.

	THE STATE OF TEXAS,

									Appellee

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 64th DISTRICT COURT OF HALE COUNTY;

	NO. B16020-0505; HON. ROBERT W. KINKAID, PRESIDING

	_______________________________

	Abatement and Remand

	_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.

	Appellant Edwin DeGraff appeals his conviction for aggravated sexual assault of a child.  On June 16, 2008, the clerk’s record was filed.  The reporter’s record was due on July 11, 2008.  Two extensions of that deadline have been granted to date.  However, the court reporter has now filed her third extension.   

	Accordingly, we abate this appeal and remand the cause to the 64th District Court of Hale County (trial court) for further proceedings.  Upon remand, the trial court shall immediately cause notice of a hearing to be given and, thereafter, conduct a hearing to determine the following:	 

	1.  when the reporter’s record can reasonably be filed (given the length of trial and size of the record) in a manner that does not unduly delay the prosecution of this appeal, and,

	2. whether an alternate or substitute reporter should or can be appointed to complete the record in a timely manner. 

	The trial court shall 1) execute findings of fact and conclusions of law addressing the foregoing issues, and 2) cause to be developed a supplemental clerk’s record containing its findings of fact and conclusions of law and all orders it may issue as a result of its hearing in this matter.  Additionally, the district court shall then cause the supplemental record to be filed with the clerk of this court on or before October 23, 2008.   Should further time be needed by the trial court to perform these tasks, then same must be requested before October 23, 2008.

	It is so ordered.

							Per Curiam

Do not publish.
In the MATTER OF the FORECLOSURE OF a DEED OF TRUST EXECUTED BY Donald R. BAGWELL and Sylvia J. Bagwell dated February 26, 2003 and Recorded in Book 2910 at Page 533 in the Orange County Public Registry, North Carolina, et al.

No. 318P16-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 8, 2016

Donald R. Bagwell, for Bagwell, Donald R.

***ORDER***

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 1st of September 2016 by Petitioner for Writ of Prohibition and/or Temporary Restraining Order:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th of September 20 16."

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Petitioner on the 1st of September 2016 in this matter for a writ of mandamus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Orange County:

"Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th of September 2016."
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

MARGIE ORTEGA,

 Appellant,

v.

ART GONZALEZ AND JAMES

RASCOE,

 Appellees.

§

§

§

§

§

 § 

No. 08-08-00187-CV

Appeal from the

394th District Court

of Hudspeth County, Texas

(TC#3905-394)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

 This appeal is before the Court on its own motion for determination as to whether the appeal

should be dismissed for want of prosecution. On May 21, 2008, Appellant filed her notice of appeal.

However, Appellant failed to tender the required filing fee. Notice of this failure was provided to

Appellant by correspondence of the same date. Appellant was informed that the fee had to be paid

within twenty days. Appellant was warned that failure to do so could result in dismissal of the

appeal. Despite the passage of this deadline, Appellant has failed to tender the filing fee. In

addition, Appellant failed to request a reporter’s record and failed to file the clerk’s record. By

correspondence dated May 28, 2008, the Clerk of the Court gave notice of such failures and of the

Court’s intent to dismiss the appeal if Appellant did not provide grounds for its continuance by June
2

10, 2008. Appellant made no response. Therefore, pursuant to Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure

5, 37.3, and 42.3, this appeal is dismissed with prejudice.

KENNETH R. CARR, Justice

September 25, 2008

Before Chew, C.J., McClure, and Carr, JJ.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.37

                                PROMISSORY NOTE


$1,000,000                                                        March 31, 1997


     As hereinafter stated, for value received Jayhawk Medical Acceptance
Corporation promises to pay to the order of Carl Westcott in Dallas, Texas the
sum of One Million Dollars, payable on demand with interest at the rate of prime
per annum from the date of this Promissory Note.   This Promissory Note may be
prepaid at any time without penalty.  Amounts due under this Promissory Note
from and after it is due shall bear interest at the highest lawful rate.

     We, the makers, sureties, endorsers and guarantors of this Promissory Note,
hereby severally waive presentment for payment, notice of nonpayment, protest
and notice of protest and diligence of bringing suit for collection, and consent
that time of payment may be extended without notice thereof to any of the
makers, sureties, endorsers or guarantors of this Promissory Note.  It is
further expressly agreed that if this Promissory Note is placed in the hands of
an attorney for collection, or suit is brought on same, or is collected through
the Probate Court, then, and in that event, the makers, sureties, endorsers and
guarantors will pay the holder of this Promissory Note the costs of collection,
including but not limited to the attorney's fees, incurred by the holder of this
Promissory Note.

     MAKER:                                      /s/ Douglas Theodore
                                             -----------------------------------
                                             By: Douglas Theodore for
                                             Jayhawk Medical Acceptance
STATE v. Aron HARPER.

No. 337P15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Oct. 8, 2015.

Christopher W. Brooks, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Leslie S. Robinson, Greenville, Attorney at Law, for Harper, Aron.

W. Clark Everett, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 6th of October 2015 by Defendant for Temporary Stay:

> "Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th of October 2015."
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

OCT 7, 2008

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 05-17170

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 00-01334 MD-FAM

LEONARD J. KLAY, M.D., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

versus

IAN K. COOK, Dr.,

Defendant-Appellant,

CIGNA DEFENDANTS, 

CIGNA HEALTHCARE OF TEXAS, INC.

Defendants-Appellees.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

_________________________

(October 7, 2008)

Before EDMONDSON, Chief Judge, ANDERSON, Circuit Judge, and COHILL,*

District Judge.

PER CURIAM:

_____________

*Honorable Maurice B. Cohill, Jr., United States District Judge for the Western District of

Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.
2

After oral argument and careful consideration, we readily conclude that the

judgment of the district court is due to be affirmed. For the reasons discussed at

oral argument, we conclude that the notice of the class action settlement amply

satisfied the requirements of due process. We also conclude that Dr. Cook failed to

preserve in the district court his argument that some of his claims were not “finally

adjudicated” and thus should have been excluded from the claims released by the

settlement agreement. 

AFFIRMED.
1

The Honorable Karen E. Schreier, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the District of South Dakota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-2493

___________

David A. Gingras, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of South Dakota.

Kraig Wood; Tony Harrison; Mark *

Black; Mike Walker; John Griswold; * [UNPUBLISHED]

Pat West; Misti Walker; Jeff Goble, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: September 18, 2008

Filed: September 24, 2008

___________

Before MURPHY, BYE, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

David Gingras appeals the district court’s1

 adverse grant of summary judgment

in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We agree with the district court that, because

Gingras’s complaint was silent as to the capacity in which he was suing defendants,

his complaint was properly construed as asserting only official-capacity claims, see

Baker v. Chisom, 501 F.3d 920, 923 (8th Cir. 2007) (noting that if plaintiff’s
-2-

complaint is silent about capacity in which he is suing defendant, court interprets

complaint as including only official-capacity claims), and, as such, those claims failed,

see Robb v. Hungerbeeler, 370 F.3d 735, 739 (8th Cir. 2004) (official-capacity suit

is treated as suit against entity); Ware v. Jackson County, Mo., 150 F.3d 873, 880 (8th

Cir. 1998) (plaintiff may establish municipal liability under § 1983 by proving his

constitutional rights were violated by action pursuant to policy or by misconduct so

pervasive as to constitute custom); Morstad v. Dep’t of Corr. and Rehab., 147 F.3d

741, 743 (8th Cir. 1998) (Eleventh Amendment bars suit against state or state officials

acting in official capacities). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
**EXHIBIT 32.1**
**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**
     In connection with the accompanying quarterly report on Form 10-QSB ofUpson Bankshares, Inc. (the “ Company “) for the quarter ended June 30, 2004(the “ Periodic Report “), the undersigned Chief Executive Officer of theCompany, hereby certifies pursuant to Title 18, Section 1350 United StatesCode, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, tothe best of his individual knowledge and belief, that the Periodic Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Periodic Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.
Dated: September 20, 2004 /s/ Daniel W. BrinksDaniel W. BrinksPresident and Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 32.2



Certification



Pursuant to the requirement set forth in Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, David E. Hooston hereby certifies as follows:



| | 1. | He is the duly appointed Chief Financial Officer of Placer Sierra Bancshares, a California corporation (the Company).
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | Based on his knowledge, the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2006, and to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.2 (the
Periodic Report), fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or section 15(d), of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has set his hand hereto as of this 9th day of May 2006.



Dated: May 9, 2006



| |  |                                         
| |  | ----------------------------------------
| |  | PLACER SIERRA BANCSHARES                
| | 
| |  | /s/ David E. Hooston                    
| |  | David E. Hooston Chief Financial
Officer
. ’ 

OFFICE OF THE AlTORNEYGENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTlN 

HOnor~bl* Rolner @arrimll, Jr. 

Dircator 

Beprrtment o? Pwbllo Safety 

Aus tin , Texas 

-!?i 

1940, you ark the 

ion of ubethbr ?ihe 

Aote or, the 

authorire t 

on HRe sulultted to Ii8 aA& 

dleouaaed In our opiaian 

f Ootobar 9, 1939. 

th, for your lnplalon WC hrld follorr: 

or tom your eixth querCloa, you are 

the balanoo whioh may r”p*c la the 

and Qhaatfeur8r License kd, under 

Publid 9atsty 

ocae is not the ohmaoter of npcoi.al tuna ~vtilabke for the UPO oi the Deportment of Publlo 

Safety generally, by gnd with the approved of 

the Lialtaatlun of P~ytwnta ?S&&, but the rider 
: 

Hor:.Trable Holaar Garrison, Jr., Page 2 

quoted above from Senate Bill 427 requirer 

" th& I)uoh exoese or surplus in the fund be 

devbted to a partloular use by the ComptrOller, that is, the exoesa at the end of the 

flroal blennlum in this epealal fund is to 

be pald into the Qeneral Fund for the purpole of relmburslng that fund for the item 

of~~:ralariee and other expenaee arywoprlated 

to the Depertment of Publio Safety out of 

the Generel Fund for the flroal blennlum ending Augtmt 31, 1941.* 

Your6 very truly 

ATTORNEY GENE~:AL OF TEXhB 

BY 

A . 'd Falmhlld 

Aesi at&t 

Opinion Committee 

By B.W.B., Chairman
STATE v. Robert Wayne STANLEY

376P02-6

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 17, 2016

Teresa M. Postell, Assistant Attorney General, James R. O'Neill, District Attorney, for State of NC.

Ann B. Petersen, Attorney at Law, Chapel Hill, for Stanley, Robert Wayne.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 16th of November 2016 by State of NC for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 17th of November 2016." Ervin, J. recused
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

JOHN BROCK,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 39 EM 2019

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 15th day of July, 2019, the Petition for Leave to File Petition for 

Allowance of Appeal Nunc Pro Tunc is GRANTED. Counsel is DIRECTED to file a 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal within 15 days.