alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2011203EN.01001601.xml

| 9.7.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 203/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.7.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 203/16

---

Update of reference amounts for the crossing of the external borders, as referred to in Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) (OJ C 247, 13.10.2006, p. 19; OJ C 153, 6.7.2007, p. 22; OJ C 182, 4.8.2007, p. 18; OJ C 57, 1.3.2008, p. 38; OJ C 134, 31.5.2008, p. 19; OJ C 37, 14.2.2009, p. 8; OJ C 35, 12.2.2010, p. 7; OJ C 304, 10.11.2010, p. 5; OJ C 24, 26.1.2011, p. 6; OJ C 157, 27.5.2011, p. 8)

2011/C 203/08

The publication of reference amounts for the crossing of the external borders, as referred to in Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code), is based on the information communicated by the Member States to the Commission in accordance with Article 34 of the Schengen Borders Code.

In addition to the publication in the Official Journal, a monthly update is available on the website of the Directorate-General for Home Affairs.

NORWAY

Replacement of the information published in OJ C 247, 13.10.2006

Replacement of the information published in OJ C 247, 13.10.2006

According to Section 17(f) in the Norwegian Immigration Act, any foreign national who cannot show evidence of having or being ensured sufficient means for his or her stay in the realm or in another Schengen country and for the return journey, may be rejected entry at the border.

The amounts deemed necessary are fixed individually and decisions are taken on a case-by-case basis. Account is taken of the length of stay, whether the foreign national will be staying with family or friends, whether he or she has a ticket for the return journey and whether a guarantee has been given for the stay (as an indication, an amount of NOK 500 per day is deemed to be adequate for visitors who are not staying with relations or friends).

---
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5584 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

500 East Whitestone Boulevard in Cedar Park, Texas, as the ‘‘Army 

Specialist Matthew Troy Morris Post Office Building’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 23, 2010 

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

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 500 East Whitestone Boulevard in Cedar 

Park, Texas, as the ‘‘Army Specialist Matthew Troy 

Morris Post Office Building’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. ARMY SPECIALIST MATTHEW TROY MORRIS 

4 POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

5 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

6 Postal Service located at 500 East Whitestone Boulevard 

7 in Cedar Park, Texas, shall be known and designated as 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5584 IH

1 the ‘‘Army Specialist Matthew Troy Morris Post Office 

2 Building’’. 

3 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg4 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

5 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

6 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Army Specialist Mat7 thew Troy Morris Post Office Building’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
#### SHEPHERD, INC. v. KIM, INC.

No. 319 PC.

Case below: 52 N.C. App. 700.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 3 November 1981.
<PAGE>

                                                                    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

     Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and in connection
with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of The Enstar Group, Inc. (the
"Corporation") for the period ended June 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, the
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation, certifies that:

     (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
Corporation.

                                          /s/ Nimrod T. Frazer
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          Nimrod T. Frazer
                                          Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

August 9, 2005

     A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to The Enstar Group, Inc. and will be retained by The Enstar
Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.

                                        32
#### RHEINBERG-KELLEREI GMBH v. VINEYARD WINE CO.

No. 77 PC.

Case below: 53 N.C. App. 560.

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 1 December 1981.
Case 1:07-cv-03470-NRB Document 2 Filed 05/01/2007 Page 1 of 1
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
Quarterly Report of K-V Pharmaceutical Company (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Gregory J. Divis, President and
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 my 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 results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |  |  |                                      
|-------------------- |  |  |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: March 22, 2011 |  |  |  | /s/ Gregory J. Divis                 
|                     |  |  |  | Gregory J. Divis                     
|                     |  |  |  | President and Chief Executive Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the
electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

The foregoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as our exhibit to the Quarterly Report on Form
10-Q and shall not be deemed to be considered filed as part of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q.
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Kewaunee Scientific Corporation (the Company) for the
period ending July 31, 2006, I, D. Michael Parker, Senior Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



| | (1) | such Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended July 31, 2006, 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 such Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended July 31, 2006, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                         |  |                                                           
|------------------------ |  | ----------------------------------------------------------
|Date: September 12, 2006 |  |                                                           
|                         | 
|                         |  | /s/ D. Michael Parker                                     
|                         |  | D. Michael Parker                                         
|                         |  | Senior Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial
Officer
Case 1:07-cv-03364-LAK Document 5-8 Filed 07/18/2007 Page 1 of 1
October 13, 2015



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

EX PARTE ALICIA BRUM ANT

NO. 14

- 15

- 00337

- CR

________________________________ This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. Having considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the judgment. The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED

. We further order appellant pay all costs expended in the appeal. We further order this decision certified below for observance.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I,  Michael  F  Manion,  certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant  to  Section  906  of  the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual
Report  of eCHEX Worldwide Corp. (formerly Worldwide Wireless Networks, Inc.) on
Form  10-KSB  for  the annual period ended December 31, 2003 fully complies with
the  requirements  of  Section  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934  and  that information contained in such Form 10-KSB fairly presents in all
material  respects  the  financial  condition and results of operations of eCHEX
Worldwide  Corp.  (formerly  Worldwide  Wireless  Networks,  Inc.).


By:                /S/
           ----------------------
Name:      Michael F Manion
Title:     President and Director


CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I,  John Wolfe, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to  Section  906  of  the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of
eCHEX  Worldwide  Corp.  (formerly  Worldwide  Wireless  Networks, Inc.) on Form
10-KSB  for  the  annual  period ended December 31, 2003 fully complies with the
requirements  of  Section  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and  that  information  contained  in  such  Form  10-KSB fairly presents in all
material  respects  the  financial  condition and results of operations of eCHEX
Worldwide  Corp.  (formerly  Worldwide  Wireless  Networks,  Inc.).


By:                /S/
           -------------------
Name:      John Wolfe
Title:     Disbursing Agent


<PAGE>
#### Carl D. Cook, Jr., Petitioner, v Cyndia M. Escabar et al., Respondents.

City Court of Syracuse,

March 26, 1987

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Richard A. Franklin*for petitioner. *Frank H. Hiscock Legal Aid Society*for respondents.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Anthony J. Gigliotti, J.

A summary proceeding alleging nonpayment of rent was commenced by the service of a notice of petition and petition, wherein the caption named Carl D. Cook, Jr., as "Petitioner (Landlord)”. In the first sentence of the petition a Howard W. Gill was referred to as "owner and landlord”. Said Howard W. Gill is referred to in paragraph No. "1” of the petition as "the agent of the petitioner”. The petition is executed and verified by the same Howard W. Gill. Finally, the petition identified another individual as petitioner’s attorney.

The respondents’ attorney made a limited appearance and moved to dismiss the petition on the grounds that it was not *1092verified by a person authorized to commence a summary proceeding by RPAPL 721.

Petitioner’s attorney argued that Howard W. Gill was the duly authorized agent of the petitioner, had personal knowledge of the facts therein, and was prepared to testify to the facts.

Laws of 1977 (ch 247) repealed RPAPL 721 (8), removing legal representatives, attorneys, agents and assignees from the category of persons eligible to commence summary proceedings. RPAPL 741 requires verification of petitions by persons authorized to commence summary proceedings by section 721 of said law.

It has been held that a petition verified by a person not authorized by RPAPL 721 to commence a summary proceeding is fatally defective and confers no jurisdiction on the court. *(1550 Broadway Assocs. v El-Pine Drinks,*96 Misc 2d 707 [1978].)

In the present case an agent has verified the petition of an individual petitioner. The clear meaning of the statute, in view of amendments made in 1977, is that agents such as Mr. Gill, may not verify petitions in summary proceedings.

The petition is, therefore, jurisdictionally defective and is, therefore, dismissed.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 24 (Tuesday, February 6, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5486-5487]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-508]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration


Notice of Intent To Rule on Request To Release Airport Property 
at the Pueblo Memorial Airport, Pueblo, CO

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Request to Release Airport Property.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to rule and invite public comment on the 
release of land at the Pueblo Memorial Airport under the provisions of 
Section 125 of the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment Reform Act for 
the 21st Century (AIR 21).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 8, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this application may be mailed or delivered

[[Page 5487]]

to the FAA at the following address: Mr. Craig A. Sparks, Manager, 
Federal Aviation Administration, Northwest Mountain Region, Airports 
Division, Denver Airports District Office, 26805 E. 68th Ave., Suite 
224, Denver, Colorado 80249.
    In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be 
mailed or delivered to Mr. Jerry Brienza, Airport Manager of Operations 
and Maintenance, Pueblo Memorial Airport, 31201 Bryan Circle, Pueblo, 
Colorado 81001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Chris Schaffer, Project Manager, 
Federal Aviation Administration, Northwest Mountain Region, Airports 
Division, Denver Airports District Office, 26805 E. 68th Ave., Suite 
224, Denver, Colorado 80249.
    The request to release property may be reviewed in person at this 
same location.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA invites public comment on the 
request to release property at the Pueblo Memorial Airport under the 
provisions of the AIR 21.
    On December 8, 2006, the FAA determined that the request to release 
property at the Pueblo Memorial Airport submitted by the City of 
Pueblo, Colorado met the procedural requirements of the Federal 
Aviation Regulations, Part 155. The FAA may approve the request, in 
whole or in part, no later than February 28, 2007.
    The following is a brief overview of the request:
    The Pueblo Memorial Airport requests the release of 0.68 acres of 
non-aeronautical airport property to the City of Pueblo, Colorado. The 
purpose of this release is to allow the City to sell the subject land 
that no longer serves any aeronautical purpose at the airport. The sale 
of this parcel will provide funds for airport improvements.
    Any person may inspect the request by appointment at the FAA office 
listed above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    In addition, any person may inspect the application, notice and 
other documents germane to the application in person at the Pueblo 
Memorial Airport, 31201 Bryan Circle, Pueblo, Colorado 81001.

    Issued in Denver, Colorado on January 31, 2007.
Craig A. Sparks,
Manager, Denver Airports District Office.
[FR Doc. 07-508 Filed 2-5-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

 GAINESVILLE DIVISION

SHERRIE RUSSELL-BROWN

VS USDC NO. 1:09-cv-00257-MP -GRJ

USCA NO. 10-14328-D

THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA BOARD OF TRUSTEES, et al

TRANSMITTAL OF MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL DOCUMENTS

The following documents are hereby transmitted to the Clerk, U. S. Court of Appeals.

Certified docket sheet/page

The appellate docket fee paid. Date paid: 11/10/2010 – receipt number 1-1268

Please acknowledge receipt on the enclosed copy of this transmittal to: GAINESVILLE DIVISION

SHEILA HURST-RAYBORN,

ACTING CLERK OF COURT

s/ KELLI MALU

By: Kelli Malu

Deputy Clerk 

401 SE 1st Avenue, Ste 243

November 10, 2010 Gainesville, Florida 32601

Case 1:09-cv-00257-MP -GRJ Document 165 Filed 11/10/10 Page 1 of 1
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 16-34 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 1 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 16-34 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 2 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 16-34 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 3 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 16-34 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 4 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 16-34 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 5 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 16-34 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 6 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 16-34 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 7 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 16-34 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 8 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 16-34 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 9 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 16-34 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 10 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 16-34 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 11 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 16-34 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 12 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 16-34 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 13 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 16-34 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 14 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 16-34 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 15 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 16-34 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 16 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 16-34 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 17 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 16-34 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 18 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 16-34 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 19 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 16-34 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 20 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 16-34 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 21 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 16-34 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 22 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 16-34 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 23 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 16-34 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 24 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 16-34 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 25 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 1 Filed 05/02/2007 Page 1 of 6
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 1 Filed 05/02/2007 Page 2 of 6
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 1 Filed 05/02/2007 Page 3 of 6
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 1 Filed 05/02/2007 Page 4 of 6
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 1 Filed 05/02/2007 Page 5 of 6
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 1 Filed 05/02/2007 Page 6 of 6
Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 23      Filed 04/28/2008     Page 1 of 3

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 23      Filed 04/28/2008     Page 2 of 3

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 23      Filed 04/28/2008     Page 3 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 21-3      Filed 04/28/2008     Page 1 of 9

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 21-3      Filed 04/28/2008     Page 2 of 9

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 21-3      Filed 04/28/2008     Page 3 of 9

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 21-3      Filed 04/28/2008     Page 4 of 9

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 21-3      Filed 04/28/2008     Page 5 of 9

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 21-3      Filed 04/28/2008     Page 6 of 9

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 21-3      Filed 04/28/2008     Page 7 of 9

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 21-3      Filed 04/28/2008     Page 8 of 9

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 21-3      Filed 04/28/2008     Page 9 of 9
Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, May 07, 2021

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A21A1231. DAVID KIRKLAND v. THE STATE.

The appellant in this case failed to comply with the notice of docketing mailed by this 

Court and with Court of Appeals Rule 23 (a), regarding the filing of an enumeration of errors 

and brief within twenty days after the appeal was docketed. See also Court of Appeals Rule 13.

On April 19, 2021, this Court ordered the appellant to file an enumeration of errors and a 

brief no later than April 29, 2021. As of the date of this order, the appellant's enumeration of 

errors and brief still have not been filed. Accordingly, this appeal is deemed abandoned and is 

hereby ordered DISMISSED. Court of Appeals Rules 7, 23 (a).

Because procedural deficiencies have deprived the appellant of the right of appellate 

review, the appellant is hereby informed of the following in accordance with Rowland v. State, 

264 Ga. 872 (452 SE2d 756) (1995):

This Court has dismissed your appeal because an enumeration of errors and a 

brief have not been filed on your behalf as required. If this failure occurred while 

you were represented by legal counsel and was due to your appellate counsel's 

failure to perform the duties of appellate counsel, and if you still wish to appeal, 

you may file a motion in the trial court for permission to pursue an out-of-time 

appeal. If the trial court grants your motion for an out-of-time appeal, you will 

have 30 days from the filing date of the order granting your motion to file in the 

trial court a notice of appeal from the judgment of conviction and sentence. If the 

trial court denies your motion for an out-of-time appeal, you will have 30 days 

from the filing date of the order denying your motion to file in the trial court a 

notice of appeal from that order.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, May 07, 2021.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

The Clerk of Court is directed to send a copy of this order to the appellant as well as to 

the appellant's attorney of record, if any. The appellant's attorney is also directed to send a copy 

of this order to the appellant.
#### STATE v. FERGUSON

No. 34 PC

Case below: 48 N.C. App. 431

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 4 November 1980.
Case 1:07-cv-03446-AKH Document 3 Filed 08/06/2007 Page 1 of 1
Case 7:07-cv-03537-CLB Document 9 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 1 of 1
#### HOMES, INC. v. PEARTREE

No. 30 PC.

Case below: 24 N.C. App. 579.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 2 April 1975.