alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Official Journal L 212/2023

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 212 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 6629 August 2023 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 212

English edition

Legislation

Volume 6629 August 2023

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/1664 of 25 August 2023 amending Annexes V, XIV and XV to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/404 as regards the entries for Argentina, the United Kingdom and the United States in the lists of third countries authorised for the entry into the Union of consignments of poultry, germinal products of poultry and fresh meat of poultry and game birds (
  1
  ) | 1 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/1664 of 25 August 2023 amending Annexes V, XIV and XV to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/404 as regards the entries for Argentina, the United Kingdom and the United States in the lists of third countries authorised for the entry into the Union of consignments of poultry, germinal products of poultry and fresh meat of poultry and game birds (
  1
  )

1

1

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance. |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
##### 



Holly Energy Partners, L.P.
Computation of Ratio of Earnings
To Fixed Charges
 Three MonthsEnded
    
    
    Years Ended December 31,March 31, 2008
    
    
    2007
    
    
    2006
    
    
    2005
    
    
    2004
    
    
    2003Earnings:Net income
    
    $
    7,798
    
    
    $
    39,271
    
    
    $
    27,543
    
    
    $
    26,816
    
    
    $
    32,494
    
    
    $
    581Minority interest in consolidated subsidiary
    
    
    406
    
    
    
    1,067
    
    
    
    680
    
    
    
    740
    
    
    
    1,994
    
    
    
    758Income from equity investee
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    (894
    )8,204
    
    
    $
    40,338
    
    
    
    28,223
    
    
    
    27,556
    
    
    
    34,488
    
    
    
    445Add:Total fixed charges (per below)
    
    
    4,301
    
    
    
    15,125
    
    
    
    14,815
    
    
    
    11,324
    
    
    
    2,279
    
    
    
    1,665Distributed income of equity investee
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Total earnings
    
    $
    12,506
    
    
    $
    55,463
    
    
    $
    43,038
    
    
    $
    38,880
    
    
    $
    36,767
    
    
    $
    2,110Fixed charges:Interest expense
    
    $
    3,807
    
    
    $
    13,289
    
    
    $
    13,056
    
    
    $
    9,633
    
    
    $
    697
    
    
    $
    Estimate of interest within rental
expense(1)
    
    
    494
    
    
    
    1,836
    
    
    
    1,759
    
    
    
    1,691
    
    
    
    1,582
    
    
    
    1,665Total fixed charges
    
    $
    4,301
    
    
    $
    15,125
    
    
    $
    14,815
    
    
    $
    11,324
    
    
    $
    2,279
    
    
    $
    1,665Ratio of earnings to fixed charges
    
    
    2.91
    
    
    
    3.67
    
    
    
    2.91
    
    
    
    3.43
    
    
    
    16.13
    
    
    
    1.27
 
 (1)
    
    Represents 30% of the total operating lease rental expense which is that portion deemed to be
interest. - 44 -
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7317

BILLY LEE LISENBY, JR., a/k/a Malik Al-Shabazz,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

CECILIA REYNOLDS, Warden KCI,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Orangeburg. David C. Norton, District Judge. 

(5:12-cv-02666-DCN)

Submitted: December 17, 2013 Decided: December 20, 2013

Before KING, GREGORY, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Billy Lee Lisenby, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, 

Senior Assistant Attorney General, James Anthony Mabry, 

Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Billy Lee Lisenby, Jr., seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate 

judge and dismissing Lisenby’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition

as untimely filed. The order is not appealable unless a circuit 

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). A certificate of appealability 

will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Lisenby has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, 

we deny Lisenby’s motion for a certificate of appealability and 

dismiss the appeal. We further deny Lisenby’s motion for 

appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because 
3

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED
EX-4.1



 Exhibit 4.1 

 
 




 
 NUMBER SHARES Regado Biosciences, Inc. INCORPORATED UNDER THE
LAWS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE COMMON STOCK CUSIP 75874Q107 This Certifies That: $0.001 PAR VALUE Is the Owner of SPECIMEN FULLY PAID AND NON-ASSESSABLE SHARES OF COMMON STOCK OF REGADO BIOSCIENCES, INC. Regado Biosciences, INC. transferable on the
books of the Corporation in person or by attorney upon surrender of this certificate duly endorsed or assigned This certificate and the shares represented hereby are subject to the laws of the State of Delaware, and to the Certificate of
Incorporation and Bylaws of the Corporation, as now or hereafter amended. This certificate is not valid until countersigned by the Transfer Agent. DATED: Secretary President 







 




 
 The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on
the face of this certificate, shall be construed as though they were written out in full according to applicable laws or regulations: TEN COM - as tenants in common TEN ENT - as tenants by the entireties TEN - as joint tenants with right of
survivorship and not as tenants in common UNIF GIFT MIN ACT – Custodian (Cust) (Minor) Under Uniform Gift to Minors Act (State) Additional abbreviations may also be used though not in the above list. For Value Received, hereby sell, assign and
transfer unto PLEASE INSFRT SOCIAL. SECUERITY OR OTHER IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE (PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE NAME AND ADDRESS. INCLUDING ZIP CODE, OF ASSIGNEE) Shares of the stock represented by the within Certificate, and do hereby irrevocably
constitute and appoint Allorney to transfer the said stock on the books of the within named Corporation with full power of substitution in the premises. Dated: NOTICE: THE SIGNATURE TO THIS ASSIGNMENT MUST CORRESPOND WITH THE NAME AS WRITTEN UPON
THE FACE OF THE CERTIFICATE IN EVERY PARTICULAR. WITHOUT ALTERATION OR ENLARGEMENT OR ANY CHANGE WHATSOEVER. THE CORPORATION WILL FURNISH TO ANY STOCKHOLDER. UPON REQUEST AND WITHOUT CHARGE, A FULL STATEMENT OF THE DESIGNATIONS, RELATIVE RIGHTS,
PREFERENCES AND LIMITATIONS OF THE SHARES OF EACH CLASS AND SFRIFS AUTHORIZED TO BE ISSUED, SO FAR AS THE SAME HAVE BEEN DETERMINED, AND OF THE AUTHORITY. IF ANY, OF THE BOARD TO DIVIDE TIlE ShARES INTO CLASSES OR SERIES AND TO DETERMINE AND CHANGE
THE RELATIVE RIGHTS, PRFERENCES AND LIMITATIONS OF ANY CLASS OR SIERIES. SUCH REQUEST MAY BE MADE TO THE SECRETARY OF THE CORPORATION OR TO THE TRANSFER AGENT NAMED ON THIS CERTIFICATE.
STATE v. Gabriel A. FERRARI

277P18-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 20, 2018

Gabriel Adrian Ferrari, for Gabriel A. Ferrari.

Daniel P. O'Brien, Special Deputy Attorney General, Todd Williams, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 27th of August 2018 by Defendant for Certiorari:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of September 2018."
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of theglobe.com (the "Company") on Form
10-KSB for the year ending December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael S. Egan, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to
the best of my knowledge and belief:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


                Date:   March 30, 2005

                      /s/ Michael S. Egan
                      -----------------------
                      Michael S. Egan
                      Chief Executive Officer
CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

Exhibit 32.2CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Pure Biofuels
Corp., a Nevada corporation (the "Company"),
on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the
"Report"), Gustavo Goyzueta, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, does hereby
certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.
Section 1350), that to his knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

|Date: May 21, 2007 |  |                        
|------------------ |  | -----------------------
|                   |  | /s/ Gustavo Goyzueta   
|                   |  | Gustavo Goyzueta       
|                   |  | Chief Financial Officer

[A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Pure Biofuels Corp. and will be retained by Pure Biofuels Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.]

---
STATE of North Carolina v. Jamal M. WATSON

No. 107P18

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 7, 2018

Teresa M. Postell, Assistant Attorney General, Roger A. Echols, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina

Daniel F. Read, Attorney at Law, Durham, for Watson, Jamal M.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the conditional petition filed on the 23rd of April 2018 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:

"Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 7th of June 2018."
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen

Kurtis T. Wilder,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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 29, 2017

t0926

Order 

Clerk

September 29, 2017

155612

SALLY GALLAGHER, as Next Friend of

CATHERINE E. GALLAGHER, a legally

incompetent person,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 155612

COA: 335509 

Kent CC: 16-003196-NO

MV TRANSPORTATION, INC., sometimes d/b/a

GO!BUS,

Defendant-Appellant, 

and

THERON A. CRAMATIE, INTERURBAN

TRANSIT PARTNERSHIP, CITY OF GRAND

RAPIDS, and NETWORK 180,

Defendants.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the stipulation signed by counsel for the parties agreeing to 

the dismissal of this application for leave to appeal is considered, and the application for 

leave to appeal is DISMISSED with prejudice and without costs.
#### J. W. Lawrence, *Plaintiff in Error,*v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company, a Corporation, *Defendant in Error.*

Division B.

Decision Filed January 28, 1928.

Petition for Rehearing Denied March 1, 1928.

*Jones & Jones*and *E. W. & B. C. Davis,*for Plaintiff in Error;

*Alexander Aherman*and *W. B. Crawford,*for Defendant in Error.

Per Curiam.

This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the judgment herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the Court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that there is no error in the said judgment; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and adjudged by the Court that the said judgment of the Circuit Court be, and the same is hereby, affirmed.

Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATIONS**

I, Richard A. Lozyniak,certify that:

1. I have reviewed thisquarterly report on Form 10-Q of Blue Ridge Paper Products Inc. (the “registrant”);

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

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

4. The registrant’s othercertifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

(a) designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

(c) disclosed in thisreport any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reportingthat occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant’s othercertifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluationof internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors andthe audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent functions):

(a) all significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

(b) any fraud, whether ornot material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

Date:  November 9, 2006

## **/S/ RICHARD A. LOZYNIAK**Richard A. LozyniakPresident and Chief Executive Officer

 

----
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Cornelius WHEELER.

No. 2003-KH-2199.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Aug. 29, 2003.

In re Wheeler, Cornelius;—Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Winn, 8th Judicial District Court Div. 0, No. 38,615; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No(s). 37797-KH, 37545-KH.

Granted for the sole purpose of transferring the pleading to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, for enforcement of its order in *State v. Wheeler,*37,797 (La. App.2d Cir. 6/18/03), if it has not done so already.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

WILFREDO MARTINEZ LOPEZ, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 20-71140 

Agency No. A206-679-806 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted October 12, 2021**

Before: TALLMAN, RAWLINSON, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges. 

Wilfredo Martinez Lopez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for 

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal 

from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum

and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

OCT 14 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 20-71140 

deny the petition for review.

In his opening brief, Martinez Lopez does not challenge the agency’s 

dispositive conclusion that he failed to establish his membership in a cognizable 

particular social group as to the proposed social groups that he raised before the IJ.

See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not 

specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived). 

We do not consider Martinez Lopez’s social group claim based on his

testimony that he witnessed the murder of his friend in Guatemala, because the 

BIA did not decide the issue, see Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 

(9th Cir. 2011) (review limited to the grounds relied on by the BIA), and Martinez 

Lopez does not contend the BIA erred in finding that this social group claim was 

not properly before it, see Corro-Barragan v. Holder, 718 F.3d 1174, 1177 n.5 (9th 

Cir. 2013) (failure to contest issue in opening brief resulted in waiver).

Thus, we deny the petition for review as to Martinez Lopez’s asylum and 

withholding of removal claims.

The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the 

mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

TORREY

- TYREE LEWIS,

Appellant

v.

WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND SOCIETY FSB, ET

, AL.,

Appellee :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 79 MAP 2023

Appeal from the Order of the Chester County Court of Common

Pleas at No. 2023

- 04719

- MJ dated July 11, 2023.

O RDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 13 th day of September , 2023

, as this Court lacks jurisdiction over

th is appeal

, see 42 Pa.C.S . § 722 (listing instances where this Court has exclusive

appellate jurisdiction over final orders of the courts of common pleas), and the appeal

falls within the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the Superior Court, see 42 Pa.C.S. §

742, the matter is T RANSFERRED to the Superior Court. See Pa.R.A.P. 751

.
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 21-50478

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

German Zarzoza Moreno, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 6:19-CR-259-1

Before King, Costa, and Ho, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

German Zarzoza Moreno appeals the sentences imposed following his 

guilty plea convictions for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 

cocaine and methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841. He 

argues that the district court clearly erred in applying the drug premises

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 1, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-50478 Document: 00516379891 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/01/2022
No. 21-50478

2

enhancement to his guidelines calculation pursuant to U.S.S.G. 

§ 2D1.1(b)(12). He notes that, to support the recommended enhancement, 

the presentence report (PSR) relied upon his request that a co-defendant see 

if there was a premises to rent to use for a stash house. 

The application of the § 2D1.1(b)(12) enhancement is reviewed de 

novo, and the district court’s factual findings are evaluated for clear error. 

United States v. Peterson, 977 F.3d 381, 392 (5th Cir. 2020). A factual finding 

which is “plausible in light of the record as a whole” is not clearly erroneous; 

rather, there is clear error where a “review of the record results in a definite 

and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Id. at 396 (internal 

quotation marks and citation omitted).

Section 2D1.1(b)(12) permits a two-level increase for any defendant 

who “maintain[s] a premises for the purpose of manufacturing or distributing 

a controlled substance . . . .” § 2D1.1(b)(12). The manufacturing or

distribution of a controlled substance “need not be the sole purpose for which 

the premises was maintained, but [it] must be one of the defendant’s primary 

or principal uses for the premises, rather than one of the defendant’s 

incidental or collateral uses for the premises.” § 2D1.1(b)(12) cmt. n.17.

We may affirm an enhancement on any ground supported by the 

record. United States v. Jordan, 851 F.3d 393, 399 (5th Cir. 2017). Both the 

Government’s factual basis for Moreno’s pleas and the PSR indicated that 

Moreno used his residence a number of times to distribute drugs. 

Accordingly, it is plausible in light of the record as a whole that drug 

distribution was one of the primary uses of his residence and that such use 

was not incidental. See § 2D1.1(b)(12) cmt. n.17; Peterson, 977 F.3d at 396; 

see also United States v. Cervantes, 706 F.3d 603, 620-21 (5th Cir. 2013). The 

district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

Case: 21-50478 Document: 00516379891 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/01/2022