alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Official Journal C 135A/19 J

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 135A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5019 June 2007 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 135A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5019 June 2007

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | |
| 2007/C 135A/01 | NOTICE TO READERS | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

2007/C 135A/01

NOTICE TO READERS

1

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | European Parliament |
| 2007/C 135A/02 | Guide for candidates in Procedures organised by the European Parliament | 3 |
| 2007/C 135A/03 | Notice to candidates with electronic access to this text | 6 |
| 2007/C 135A/04 | Recruitment notice PE/106/S | 7 |

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Parliament

2007/C 135A/02

Guide for candidates in Procedures organised by the European Parliament

3

2007/C 135A/03

Notice to candidates with electronic access to this text

6

2007/C 135A/04

Recruitment notice PE/106/S

7

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
STATE of North Carolina v. Ryan Samuel ROUSSEAU

No. 10A17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Filed November 3, 2017

Joshua H. Stein, Attorney General, by Phillip T. Reynolds, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Michael E. Casterline for defendant-appellant.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000921182
<NAME>                        Empiric Energy, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                           1
<CURRENCY>                                    US Dollars

<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 Year
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            Dec-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                               Jan-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                 Dec-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                        1
<CASH>                                            62,575
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     69,291
<ALLOWANCES>                                      24,244
<INVENTORY>                                            0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 107,622
<PP&E>                                         4,838,007
<DEPRECIATION>                                 2,603,395
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 2,353,164
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            825,840
<BONDS>                                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                       43,168
<COMMON>                                          90,461
<OTHER-SE>                                     1,169,846
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   2,353,164
<SALES>                                          199,732
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 263,862
<CGS>                                            346,395
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  1,154,983
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                76,589
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (967,710)
<INCOME-TAX>                                           0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (967,710)
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (967,710)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        (0.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      (0.12)



</TABLE>
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

December 27, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice 129517 & (13) Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices

v SC: 129517 COA: 263604 Saginaw CC: 85-006602-FH FELTON WOODS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal th e July 20, 2005 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant’s motion for relief from judgment is prohibited by MCR 6.502(G). The motion to remand is
DENIED.

s1219 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

December 27, 2005

Clerk
#### Jackson Terrace Homes, Inc., Plaintiff, *v.*Amelia A. Rottkamp, Defendant.

Supreme Court, Nassau County,

March 23, 1942.

*Elvin*N. *Edwards*and *Alexander Zager*for plaintiff.

*Leon Lang*for defendant.

Stoddart, J.

In this action the plaintiff, as vendee under a contract for the purchase of real estate, seeks a money judgment for the amount of its down payment, in addition to an adjudication that it has a lien upon the real estate. The plaintiff satisfied me that the defendant was unable to convey marketable title as there were at the time of trial unsatisfied liens of the New York State Transfer Tax and the United States Inheritance Tax. However, I believe that, by amending its complaint to eliminate the allegation that the *“*plaintiff is ready, and willing and hereby offers to pay the residue of the purchase money ”, the plaintiff disaffirmed the contract and therefore *546deprived itself of the right to a lien, which requires as a basis a ‘1 subsisting obligation, valid in its inception and still in force. ’ ’ *(Elterman*v. *Hyman,*192 N. Y. 113, 126.) In view of the fact that neither party objected to the court’s jurisdiction subsequent to the amendment, that each party had ample opportunity to submit any evidence relevant to the issues, and that the complaint demanded a money judgment, the court will, although refusing equitable relief, grant legal relief by awarding judgment to the plaintiff in the sum of $2,600 to cover the down payment and the expense of the title examination. *(Barlow*v. *Scott,*24 N. Y. 40.) The counterclaim for specific performance is dismissed. No costs. Submit judgment on notice.
#### STATE ex rel. Thomas DAVID v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2002-KH-2352.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 19, 2003.

In re Davis, Thomas; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial *629Writs, Parish of Madison, 6th Judicial District Court Div. 0, No. 88,363; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 35958-KH.

Denied. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; *State ex rel. Glover v. State,*93-2330 (La.9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189.
EXHIBIT 32.1

Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection
with the Quarterly Report of Mewbourne Energy Partners 05-A, L.P. (the Registrant) on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
the undersigned hereby certifies, in the capacity as indicated below and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Registrant.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                   |  |        |  |                                  
|------------------ |  | ------ |  | ---------------------------------
|                   |  |        |  | /s/ Curtis W. Mewbourne          
|                   |  | Name:  |  | Curtis W. Mewbourne              
|Date: May 13, 2008 |  | Title: |  | Chief Executive Officer          
|                   |  |        |  | Mewbourne Development Corporation
Order filed June 17, 2022

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14
- 20
- 00420
- CV

____________ DR. HANI HANNA , Appellant

V. LOCUMTENENS.COM LLC D/B/A LT MEDICAL LLC , Appellee

On Appeal from the Co Civil Ct at Law No 3

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1107602


### O R D E R The clerk’s record was filed June 29, 2020. Our review has determined that a relevant item has been omitted from the clerk's record. See Tex. R. App. P. 34.5(c). The record does not contain the Notice of Intent to Dismiss entered on December 18, 2019.The Harris County Clerk is directed to file a supplemental clerk’s record on

or before June 27, 2022 , containing the Notice of Intent to Dismiss entered on December 18, 2019. If the omitted item is not part of the case file, the district clerk is directed to file a supplemental clerk’s record containing a certified statement that the omitted item is not a part of the case file.

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Justices Jewell, Bourliot, and Poissant.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit. Nos. 95-2151, 95-2258. Non-Argument Calendars. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. Michael A. HOFIERKA, Defendant-Appellant. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. Ronald Carl ANDREWS, a/k/a "Barracuda", Defendant-Appellant. Aug. 28, 1996. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Nos. 93-67-CR-J-20, 88-60-Cr-J-20); Harvey E. Schlesinger, Judge. ON PETITION FOR REHEARING Before TJOFLAT, Chief Judge, and HATCHETT and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Upon consideration of the appellants' petition for panel rehearing, the same is granted; and the opinion filed in this case on May 16, 1996, and published at 83 F.3d 357, is modified in one respect. Footnote 7 of the opinion is deleted. In all other respects, the petition for rehearing is DENIED.
WILSON v. CARVER

254P09-3

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 1, 2018

Daniel P. O'Brien, Special Deputy Attorney General, For State of NC.

David Reed Wilson, For Wilson, David Reed.

J. Douglas Henderson, District Attorney, for the State.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 22nd of November 2017 by Petitioner to Reconsider:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 1st of March 2018."
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1507/2004

of 25 August 2004         

prohibiting fishing for cod by vessels flying the flag of Sweden

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993 establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 21(3) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Catches of cod in the waters of ICES division IIa (EC waters) and the North Sea by vessels flying the flag of Sweden or registered in Sweden are hereby deemed to have exhausted the quota allocated to Sweden for 2004.

Fishing for cod in the waters of ICES division IIa (EC waters) and the North Sea by vessels flying the flag of Sweden or registered in Sweden is hereby prohibited, as are the retention on board, transhipment and landing of this stock caught by the above vessels after the date of application of this Regulation.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

It shall apply from 13 June 2004.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 25 August 2004.

For the Commission

Jörgen HOLMQUIST            

Director-General for Fisheries

----

(1)OJ L 261, 20.10.1993, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1954/2003 (OJ L 289, 7.11.2003, p. 1).

(2)OJ L 344, 31.12.2003, p. 1.

----
##### 



CERTIFICATION OF
PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER OF
INN OF THE MOUNTAIN GODS RESORT AND CASINO
      a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by
others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report
is being prepared;b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls
and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this quarterly report based on such
evaluation; andc)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants
fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial
reporting.
  a)
    
    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data; andb)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have
a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
  /s/ Pamela GallegosBy:     Pamela GallegosTitle:
    Interim Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)
Ex104FA972Minor2




Exhibit 10.4


AHCA CONTRACT NO. FA972


MINOR MODIFICATION NO. 2




WELLCARE OF FLORIDA, INC.
D/B/A HEALTHEASE
8735 Henderson Road
Renaissance 2
Tampa, Florida 33634


AHCA Contract No. FA972, as entered into on the 30th day of August 2012, is hereby revised as follows:


		
	1.
	Standard Contract, Section III, Item B., Contract Managers, sub-item 1, is hereby amended to now read as follows:




		
	1.
	The Agency’s Contract Manager’s contact information is as follows: 




Tanya Hand
Agency for Health Care Administration
2727 Mahan Drive, MS #50
Tallahassee, FL 32308
(850) 412-4060


All other terms and conditions of the Contract shall remain unchanged.


	
					
	WELLCARE OF FLORIDA, INC.
	 
	STATE OF FLORIDA, AGENCY FOR

	D/B/A HEALTHEASE
	 
	HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION

	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	/s/ Gregg MacDonald
	 
	/s/ Tanya Hand

	Gregg MacDonald
	 
	Tanya Hand

	State President
	 
	Contract Manager

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	DATE:                                   
	4-8-14
	 
	DATE:                                           
	4/9/14

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	APPROVED

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	/s/ David Rogers

	 
	 
	 
	David Rogers

	 
	 
	 
	Assistant Deputy Secretary for Medicaid

	 
	 
	 
	Health Systems

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	DATE:                          
	4/9/14




REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

AHCA Contract No. FA972, Minor Modification No. 2, Page 1 of 1
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4392 

To align exemptions for general solicitation of investment in commodity pools 

similar to the exemption provided for general solicitation of securities 

under the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 3, 2014 

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

Committee on Agriculture 

A BILL 

To align exemptions for general solicitation of investment 

in commodity pools similar to the exemption provided 

for general solicitation of securities under the Jumpstart 

Our Business Startups Act. 

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 ‘‘Energize Emerging 

5 Opportunities Act’’. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4392 IH

1 SEC. 2. EXEMPTION FOR GENERAL SOLICITATION OF IN2 VESTMENT IN COMMODITY POOLS. 

3 Within 90 days after the date of the enactment of 

4 this Act, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

5 shall— 

6 (1) revise section 4.7(b) of title 17, Code of 

7 Federal Regulations, in the matter preceding para8 graph (1), to read as follows: 

9 ‘‘(b) Relief available to commodity pool operators. 

10 Upon filing the notice required by paragraph (d) of this 

11 section, and subject to compliance with the conditions 

12 specified in paragraph (d) of this section, any registered 

13 commodity pool operator who sells participations in a pool 

14 solely to qualified eligible persons in an offering which 

15 qualifies for exemption from the registration requirements 

16 of the Securities Act pursuant to section 4(2) of that Act 

17 or pursuant to Regulation S, 17 CFR 230.901 et seq., and 

18 any bank registered as a commodity pool operator in con19 nection with a pool that is a collective trust fund whose 

20 securities are exempt from registration under the Securi21 ties Act pursuant to section 3(a)(2) of that Act and are 

22 sold solely to qualified eligible persons, may claim any or 

23 all of the following relief with respect to such pool:’’; and 

24 (2) revise section 4.13(a)(3)(i) of such title to 

25 read as follows: 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4392 IH

1 ‘‘(i) Interests in the pool are exempt from registration 

2 under the Securities Act of 1933, and such interests are 

3 offered and sold pursuant to section 4 of the Securities 

4 Act of 1933 and the regulations thereunder;’’. 

Æ 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber)

9 October 2008

Case C-16/07 P

**Marguerite Chetcuti**

**v**

**Commission of the European Communities**

(Appeal – Civil service – Competition internal to the institution – Rejection of candidature – Conditions of admission)

**Appeal:**against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-357/04 *Chetcuti* v *Commission* [2006] ECR-SC I-A-2-255 and II-A-2-1323, seeking to have that judgment set aside.

**Held:**Appeal dismissed.

**Summary**

1.        *Officials – Conditions of employment of other servants – Temporary staff – Member of the auxiliary staff – Difference*

*(Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities, Arts 2 and 3)*

2.        *Officials – Recruitment – Competition internal to the institution – Extension of entitlement to participate to members of
the auxiliary staff – Obligation – None*

1.        It is clear from the provisions of the Staff Regulations and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European
Communities that there are differences between the administrative status, recruitment requirements and conditions of engagement
of auxiliary staff and those of officials and temporary staff. It follows from those differences that auxiliary staff are
not recruited to fulfil a permanent role within the Community institutions. On the contrary, the outstanding feature of contracts
for auxiliary staff is their precariousness since they may be used only to provide a temporary replacement or to ensure the
performance of administrative duties which are of a transitory nature or which fulfil an urgent need or which are not clearly
defined. Auxiliary staff therefore constitute a separate category which meets separate requirements of the institutions which
employ such staff.

2.        In accordance with the scheme and aims of the Staff Regulations and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the
European Communities, although the appointing authority has the right to allow the participation of auxiliary staff in a competition
internal to the institution, that does not mean that it is required to open each internal competition to all persons within
the service. Such a requirement would undermine the wide discretion which is accorded to the Community institutions in organising
their services and, in particular, in determining the procedure and conditions of competitions in the interests of the service.
Exhibit 31.2



Certifications



I, Edward Escudero, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Petro Financial Corporation;



2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to
make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:



(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most
recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting.



5. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial
reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control
over financial reporting.



Date: March 29, 2005

|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/ Edward Escudero                  
|(Edward Escudero)                    
|Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer