alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2011033EN.01001701.xml

| 2.2.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 33/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.2.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 33/17

---

Notice for the attention of the persons to which measures provided for in Council Decision 2011/69/CFSP and in Council Regulation (EU) No 84/2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 apply

2011/C 33/05

COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

The following information is brought to the attention of the persons that appear in Annexes I to V to Council Decision 2011/69/CFSP (1) and in Annexes I and II to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 84/2011 (2) amending Regulation (EC) No 765/2006.

1

2

The Council of the European Union has decided that the persons that appear in the above-mentioned Annexes should be included in the lists of persons subject to restrictive measures provided for in Decision 2011/69/CFSP and in Regulation (EU) No 84/2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 765/2006.

The attention of the persons concerned is drawn to the possibility of making an application to the competent authorities of the relevant Member State(s) as indicated in the web-sites in Annex III to Regulation (EU) No 84/2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 765/2006, in order to obtain an authorisation to use frozen funds for basic needs or specific payments (cf. Article 3 of the Regulation).

The persons concerned may submit a request to the Council, together with supporting documentation, that the decision to include them on the above-mentioned list should be reconsidered, to the following address:

| Council of the European Union |
| --- |
| General Secretariat |
| Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175 |
| 1048 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

Council of the European Union

General Secretariat

Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175

1048 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

The attention of the persons concerned is also drawn to the possibility of challenging the Council's Decision before the General Court of the European Union, in accordance with the conditions laid down in Article 275, 2nd paragraph, and Article 263, 4th and 6th paragraphs, of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ L 28, 2.2.2011, p. 40.

1

(2)  OJ L 28, 2.2.2011, p. 17.

2

---
#### Hannah Coleman, plaintiff in error, *vs.*W. A. Ransom & Company *et al.,*defendants in error.

Practice Supreme Court. Service of bill of exceptions. From Muscogee county. May Term, 1870.

C. J. Thornton; Farrow *&*Thomas; G. E. Thomas, for plaintiff in error.

Chappell & Russell, for defendant.

There was no entry of service upon the bill of exceptions, and for want of service defendant moved to dismiss the cause. Plaintiff’s counsel said, if time was given he could prove that a copy of the bill of exceptions was served upon the party or his counsel. The Court replied that time could not be given ; that service must appear on the bill of exceptions, by an acknowledgement, or by a return of an officer or affidavit of the party perfecting it, and dismissed the cause.
# C_2011285EN.01001701.xml

| 29.9.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 285/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.9.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 285/17

---

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions of 12 July 2010 regarding a draft decision relating to Case 34250 — Norway Post/Privpak

2011/C 285/11

| 1. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the EFTA Surveillance Authority on the basic amount of the fine. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the EFTA Surveillance Authority on the basic amount of the fine.

| 2. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the EFTA Surveillance Authority that there are no mitigating or aggravating circumstances to be taken into account. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the EFTA Surveillance Authority that there are no mitigating or aggravating circumstances to be taken into account.

| 3. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the EFTA Surveillance Authority on the reduction of the amount of the fine because of the length of the procedure. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the EFTA Surveillance Authority on the reduction of the amount of the fine because of the length of the procedure.

| 4. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the EFTA Surveillance Authority on the final amount of the fine. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the EFTA Surveillance Authority on the final amount of the fine.

| 5. | The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union and the EEA Supplement. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union and the EEA Supplement.

Official Journal of the European Union

EEA Supplement

| 6. | The Advisory Committee requests the EFTA Surveillance Authority to take utmost account of all points raised during the consultation. |
| --- | --- |

6.

The Advisory Committee requests the EFTA Surveillance Authority to take utmost account of all points raised during the consultation.

---
#### STATE v. MELVIN

No. 444P82.

Case below: 57 N.C. App. 503.

Petition by defendant for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 21 September 1982.
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 13-5 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 1 of 26
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 13-5 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 2 of 26
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 13-5 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 3 of 26
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 13-5 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 4 of 26
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 13-5 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 5 of 26
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 13-5 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 6 of 26
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 13-5 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 7 of 26
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 13-5 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 8 of 26
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 13-5 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 9 of 26
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 13-5 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 10 of 26
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 13-5 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 11 of 26
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 13-5 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 12 of 26
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 13-5 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 13 of 26
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 13-5 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 14 of 26
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 13-5 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 15 of 26
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 13-5 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 16 of 26
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 13-5 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 17 of 26
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 13-5 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 18 of 26
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 13-5 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 19 of 26
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 13-5 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 20 of 26
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 13-5 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 21 of 26
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 13-5 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 22 of 26
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 13-5 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 23 of 26
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 13-5 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 24 of 26
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 13-5 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 25 of 26
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 13-5 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 26 of 26
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. CASE NO. 1:10-cr-4-SPM-GRJ

PAUL LESLEY URQUHART

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This case is before the Court on Doc. 35, Defendant’s Motion To Vacate, Set

Aside, Or Correct Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and Doc. 36, Defendant’s

Motion to “Preserve and Stay” and for an extension of time fo file a motion to vacate. In

the motion to vacate, Defendant asserts that he was incorrectly sentenced as an armed

career criminal because his predicate state convictions were unconstitutional. He also

contends that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance in connection with the

Court’s use of his state convictions in sentencing him. In the “motion to preserve and

stay” and for an extension of time, Defendant asserts that he is presently pursuing

state-court remedies with respect to his predicate state convictions.

Petitioner was convicted on August 9, 2010, and thus it appears that the instant

motion to vacate is timely and his motion for an extension of time, Doc. 36, is moot. 

Further, the Court is not persuaded that the motion presents any basis for staying

consideration of Defendant’s motion to vacate. Accordingly, the motion will be denied

without prejudice pending consideration of the Government’s response to the motion to

vacate. 

Pursuant to the Rules Governing § 2255 proceedings, the Government will be

Case 1:10-cr-00004-MW-GRJ Document 37 Filed 08/05/11 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

required to file an answer or other response to the motion to vacate. Upon receipt of

the Government's response and Defendant's reply, if any, the Court will review the file

to determine whether an evidentiary hearing is required. If an evidentiary hearing is not

required, the Court will dispose of the motion as justice requires pursuant to § 2255

Rule 8(a). 

 Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The motion to preserve and stay and for an extension of time, Doc. 36, is

DENIED without prejudice.

2. The Clerk shall furnish by certified mail, return receipt requested, this Order

and Doc. 35 to the United States Attorney for this district, who shall file an

answer or other appropriate pleading no later than October 4, 2011.

3. If review of the PSR is necessary, the Probation Office shall allow counsel for

the Government to review the PSR upon request.

4. Defendant shall have until November 3, 2011, to file a response, if desired.

DONE AND ORDERED this 5 day of August 2011. 

th

s/Gary R. Jones 

GARY R. JONES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case No: 1:10-cr-4-SPM -GRJ

Case 1:10-cr-00004-MW-GRJ Document 37 Filed 08/05/11 Page 2 of 2
##### 



EXHIBIT 12.2 BARCLAYCARD FUNDING PLC
Certification Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act 2002 I, Richard Francis Sommers, certify that:  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on
Form 20-F, and all reports on Form 6-K
containing distribution or servicing
reports filed in respect of periods
included in the year covered by this
annual report, of Barclaycard Funding
PLC;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the information
in these reports, taken as a whole,
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 as
of the last day of the period covered
by this annual report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the distribution
or servicing information required to be
provided to the trustee by the servicer
under the pooling and servicing, or
similar, agreement, for inclusion in
these reports is included in these
reports;4.
    
    I am responsible for reviewing the
activities performed by the servicer
under the pooling and servicing, or
similar, agreement and based upon my
knowledge and the annual compliance
review required under that agreement,
and except as disclosed in the reports,
the servicer has fulfilled its
obligations under that agreement; and5.
    
    The reports disclose all significant
deficiencies relating to the servicers
compliance with the minimum servicing
standards based upon the report
provided by an independent public
accountant, after conducting a review
in compliance with the Uniform Single
Attestation Program for Mortgage
Bankers or similar procedure, as set
forth in the pooling and servicing, or
similar, agreement. By: /s/ Richard Francis SommersName: Richard Francis SommersTitle: DirectorDate: June 21, 2004
# C_2011356EN.01001701.xml

| 6.12.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 356/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 356/17

---

Notice of the impending expiry of certain anti-dumping measures

2011/C 356/05

1.   As provided for in Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1), the European Commission gives notice that, unless a review is initiated in accordance with the following procedure, the anti-dumping measures mentioned below will expire on the date mentioned in the table below.

1

2.   Procedure

Procedure

Union producers may lodge a written request for a review. This request must contain sufficient evidence that the expiry of the measures would be likely to result in a continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury.

Should the Commission decide to review the measures concerned, importers, exporters, representatives of the exporting country and Union producers will then be provided with the opportunity to amplify, rebut or comment on the matters set out in the review request.

3.   Time limit

Time limit

Union producers may submit a written request for a review on the above basis, to reach the European Commission, Directorate-General for Trade (Unit H-1), N-105 4/92, 1049 Brussels, Belgium (2) at any time from the date of the publication of the present notice but no later than three months before the date mentioned in the table below.

2

4.   This notice is published in accordance with Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009.

| Product | Country(ies) of origin or exportation | Measures | Reference | Date of expiry (3) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Peroxosulphates
  (persulphates) | United States of America
  People's Republic of China
  Taiwan | Anti-dumping duty | Council Regulation (EC) No 1184/2007 (OJ L 265, 11.10.2007, p. 1) | 12.10.2012 |

Product

Country(ies) of origin or exportation

Measures

Reference

Date of expiry (3)

3

Peroxosulphates

(persulphates)

United States of America

People's Republic of China

Taiwan

Anti-dumping duty

Council Regulation (EC) No 1184/2007 (OJ L 265, 11.10.2007, p. 1)

12.10.2012

---

(1)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51.

1

(2)  Fax +32 22956505.

2

(3)  The measure expires at midnight of the day mentioned in this column.

3

---
#### BARBARA PAGE v. WILLIAM WENTING TAO

No. 255A82

(Filed 5 October 1982)

APPEAL as of right pursuant to G.S. 7A-30(2) from a decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals which reversed the trial court’s order granting the defendant’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and remanding the case for entry of judgment on the jury verdict for the plaintiff and against the defendant. The opinion of the Court of Appeals, reported at 56 N.C. App. 488, 289 S.E. 2d 910 (1982), is by *Judge Becton*with *Judge Hill*concurring and *Judge Hedrick*concurring in part and dissenting in part.

*Coleman, Bernholz, Dickerson, Bernholz, Gledhill & Hargrave, by Alonzo B. Coleman, Jr. and Douglas Hargrave, for plaintiff appellee.*

*Newsome, Graham, Hedrick, Murray, Bryson & Kennon, by E. C. Bryson, Jr. and Lewis A. Cheek, for defendant appellant.*

PER CURIAM.

The facts are fully and accurately stated in the opinion of the Court of Appeals. For the reasons given in that opinion, the decision of the Court of Appeals is

Affirmed.
Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 27-6      Filed 05/22/2008     Page 1 of 15

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 27-6      Filed 05/22/2008     Page 2 of 15

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 27-6      Filed 05/22/2008     Page 3 of 15

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 27-6      Filed 05/22/2008     Page 4 of 15

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 27-6      Filed 05/22/2008     Page 5 of 15

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 27-6      Filed 05/22/2008     Page 6 of 15

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 27-6      Filed 05/22/2008     Page 7 of 15

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 27-6      Filed 05/22/2008     Page 8 of 15

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 27-6      Filed 05/22/2008     Page 9 of 15

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 27-6      Filed 05/22/2008     Page 10 of 15

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 27-6      Filed 05/22/2008     Page 11 of 15

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 27-6      Filed 05/22/2008     Page 12 of 15

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 27-6      Filed 05/22/2008     Page 13 of 15

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 27-6      Filed 05/22/2008     Page 14 of 15

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 27-6      Filed 05/22/2008     Page 15 of 15
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 2 1 - 0 029 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,
v. JOSE PERALTA,

Defendant and Appellant,

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s unopposed motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time until January 26 , 202 2 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

December 14 2021

12/14/2021

Case Number: DA 21-0029
Case 1:06-cr-00518-SHS Document 91 Filed 05/08/2008 Page 1 of 1
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-15-00095-CR

TIMOTHY AARON YZAGUIRRE,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 2

Johnson County, Texas

Trial Court No. M201400604

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Timothy Aaron Yzaguirre appealed his conviction in the County Court at Law No. 

2 of Johnson County. He has now filed a Motion to Withdraw Notice of Appeal 

requesting this Court to dismiss his appeal. Yzaguirre and his attorney have signed the 

motion.

Yzaguirre’s motion is granted, and this appeal is dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 

42.2(a).

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice
Yzaguirre v. State Page 2

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Appeal dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed March 26, 2015

Do not publish 

[CR25]
# C_2011033EN.01001601.xml

| 2.2.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 33/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.2.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 33/16

---

Notice for the attention of the persons and entities to which restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2010/656/CFSP and in Council Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 concerning restrictive measures against certain persons and entities in Côte d'Ivoire apply

2011/C 33/04

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

The following information is brought to the attention of the persons and entities who appear in Annex II to Council Decision 2010/656/CFSP (1), as amended by Decision 2011/71/CFSP (2), and in Annex IA to Council Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 (3), as amended by Regulation (EU) No 85/2011 (4), imposing restrictive measures against certain persons and entities in Côte d'Ivoire.

1

2

3

4

The Council of the European Union has decided that the persons and entities that appear in the abovementioned Annexes should be included in the list of persons subject to restrictive measures provided for in Decision 2010/656/CFSP and in Regulation (EC) No 560/2005.

The attention of the persons and entities concerned is drawn to the possibility of making an application to the competent authorities of the relevant Member State(s) as indicated on the websites in Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 560/2005, in order to obtain an authorisation to use frozen funds for basic needs or specific payments (cf. Article 3 of the Regulation).

The persons and entities concerned may submit a request to the Council, together with supporting documentation, that the decision to include them on the abovementioned lists should be reconsidered, to the following address:

| Council of the European Union |
| --- |
| General Secretariat |
| Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175 |
| 1048 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

Council of the European Union

General Secretariat

Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175

1048 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

The attention of the persons and entities concerned is also drawn to the possibility of challenging the Council's Decision before the General Court of the European Union, in accordance with the conditions laid down in Article 275, 2nd paragraph, and Article 263, 4th and 6th paragraphs, of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ L 285, 30.10.2010, p. 28.

1

(2)  OJ L 28, 2.2.2011, p. 60.

2

(3)  OJ L 95, 14.4.2005, p. 1.

3

(4)  OJ L 28, 2.2.2011, p. 32.

4

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE COMPANY'S
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS CONTAINED IN THE COMPANY'S 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED MARCH
31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                             570
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      206
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                         11
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,058
<PP&E>                                             198
<DEPRECIATION>                                      36
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   3,543
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,361
<BONDS>                                            390
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             9
<OTHER-SE>                                     (3,827)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     3,543
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,764
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,137
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   597
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  69
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (39)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       162
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (201)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 (1,593)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                        (970)
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,764)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.29)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.29)


</TABLE>
#### STATE v. SMITH

No. 86 PC.

Case below: 53 N.C. App. 809.

Petition by defendant for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 12 January 1982.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

DONNA ROBINS,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO. 5:10cv53/RS-MD

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner

of Social Security,

Defendant.

___________________________________/

ORDER

Before me is the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 29). 

Defendant does not object to the award of fees sought by Plaintiff (Doc. 28). 

IT IS ORDERED:

1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is approved and is

incorporated in this Order.

2. Plaintiff’s Petition For Attorney’s Fees (Doc. 26) is granted.

3. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2412 (EAJA), Plaintiff is entitled to recover a

reasonable fee for attorney representation before the United States

District Court for the Northern District of Florida. Attorney’s fees in the

amount of $4,192.50 are reasonable under the EAJA . The

Commissioner is directed to pay that amount to Plaintiff, Donna Robins,

and to mail payment to Plaintiff’s attorney, David E. Evans, at 108 W. 4th

Street, Panama City, Florida 32401.
 

 ORDERED on March 1, 2011.

/S/ Richard Smoak 

RICHARD SMOAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE