alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2013011EN.01008802.xml

| 15.1.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 11/88 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.1.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 11/88

---

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Amendment to the Commission proposal COM(2011) 628 final/2 for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy’

COM(2012) 551 final — 2012/0260 (COD)

2013/C 11/26

On 5 October 2012, the European Parliament and on 10 October 2012, the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 43 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, on the

Amendment to the Commission proposal COM(2011) 628 final/2 for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy

Amendment to the Commission proposal COM(2011) 628 final/2 for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy

COM(2012) 551 final — 2012/0260 (COD).

Since the Committee endorses the contents of the proposal, it decided at its 484th plenary session of 14 and 15 November 2012 (meeting of 14 November), by 149 votes to 3 with 9 abstentions, to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text.

Brussels, 14 November 2012.

The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Staffan NILSSON

---
#### STATE v. EASTER

No. 138 PC.

Case below: 51 N.C. App. 190.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 2 June 1981. Motion of Attorney General to dismiss appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question allowed 2 June 1981.
Case 7:07-cv-03508-MDF Document 11 Filed 06/18/2007 Page 1 of 15
Case 7:07-cv-03508-MDF Document 11 Filed 06/18/2007 Page 2 of 15
Case 7:07-cv-03508-MDF Document 11 Filed 06/18/2007 Page 3 of 15
Case 7:07-cv-03508-MDF Document 11 Filed 06/18/2007 Page 4 of 15
Case 7:07-cv-03508-MDF Document 11 Filed 06/18/2007 Page 5 of 15
Case 7:07-cv-03508-MDF Document 11 Filed 06/18/2007 Page 6 of 15
Case 7:07-cv-03508-MDF Document 11 Filed 06/18/2007 Page 7 of 15
Case 7:07-cv-03508-MDF Document 11 Filed 06/18/2007 Page 8 of 15
Case 7:07-cv-03508-MDF Document 11 Filed 06/18/2007 Page 9 of 15
Case 7:07-cv-03508-MDF Document 11 Filed 06/18/2007 Page 10 of 15
Case 7:07-cv-03508-MDF Document 11 Filed 06/18/2007 Page 11 of 15
Case 7:07-cv-03508-MDF Document 11 Filed 06/18/2007 Page 12 of 15
Case 7:07-cv-03508-MDF Document 11 Filed 06/18/2007 Page 13 of 15
Case 7:07-cv-03508-MDF Document 11 Filed 06/18/2007 Page 14 of 15
Case 7:07-cv-03508-MDF Document 11 Filed 06/18/2007 Page 15 of 15
# .. 2015CV00380

CAUSE NO. 2015cv00380 EDWARD R. MEZA, JR. AND SYLVIA § MEZA, INDIVIDUALLY & NEW § BRAUNFELS HOME HEALTH, INC. § D/B/A N.B. HOME HEALTH § Plaintiffs § § 

### v. § § GLORIA BURNS § Defendant § E-FILED Bexar County, County Clerk Gerard Rickhoff Accepted Date: 10/5/2017 8:13AM Accepted By: Diamond Varg s /s/ Diamond Var as Deputy Clerk

NO.3
BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS 

### PLAINTIFFS' NOTICE OF APPEAL 1. Plaintiffs Edward 

### R. Meza, Jr., Sylvia Meza, and New Braunfels Home Health, Inc. desireto appeal the court's orderand file this Notice ofAppeal seeking to alterthe trial court's finaljudgment. 2. The trial court, trial court case number and style of this matter are shown in the above caption. 3. Thejudgmentappealedfrom was signed on July6, 2017. A motionfor
newtrial wasfiled on August3, 2017. 4. This appeal is taken to the Fourth Court of Appeals at San Antonio, Texas.

Submit Date: 10/4/2017 429 PMPlaintiff's Notice ofAppeal Respectfully submitted, LAW OFFICE OF JERRY RIOS 401 CongressAvenue, Suite 1540 Austin, Texas 78701 Phone: (512) 501-6270 Fax: (512) 501-6292 E-Mail:jrios@therioslawfirm.com
By:
______________________ _ Jerry Rios Texas Bar No. 24062966 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS

Page 2 of3CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on October 4, 2017, a true and correct copy of Plaintiffs' Notice ofAppeal was served by electronic mail on the attorney record below.

Jerry Rios
Via Electronic Mail: gjdeadman@aol.com Glenn J. Deadman LAW OFFICES OF GLENN J. DEADMAN, P.C. 1515 N. St. Mary's Street San Antonio, Texas 78215 Phone: (210) 472-3900 Fax: (210) 472-3901 E-Mail: gjdeadman@aol.com

Plaintiff's Notice ofAppeal Page 3 of3
EXHIBIT 13.1

CERTIFICATION

Certification of Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Deputy Chief Executive Officer, and Chief Financial Officer and Chief Operations
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 Annual Report on Form 20-F of National Bank of Greece S.A. ("National Bank of Greece") for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007
(the "Report"), Takis Arapoglou, as Chairman and CEO of National Bank of Greece, Ioannis Pechlivanidis, as Deputy CEO, and Anthimos Thomopoulos, as CFO and COO, respectively, each hereby certifies,
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 his knowledge:



Dated
May 27, 2008

|/s/ Efstratios-Georgios (Takis) A. Arapoglou                                  |  | 
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|Efstratios-Georgios (Takis) A. Arapoglou Chairman and Chief Executive Officer |  | 
|/s/ Ioannis G. Pechlivanidis                                                  |  | 
|Ioannis G. Pechlivanidis Deputy Chief Executive Officer                       |  | 
|/s/ Anthimos Thomopoulos                                                      |  | 
|Anthimos Thomopoulos Chief Financial Officer and
Chief Operations Officer     |  | 

The
above certificate is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.

---



QuickLinks
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

MANUEL A. CHIONG,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No.: 3:10cv77/RV/EMT

S.H. JONES, et al.,

Defendants.

__________________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This cause is before the court upon referral from the clerk. Plaintiff commenced this action

by filing a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1). Plaintiff subsequently amended

his complaint (see Docs. 20, 29, 38). On April 1, 2011, this court entered an order giving Plaintiff

thirty (30) days in which to seek to determine the identity of each of the five unidentified Defendants

(Doc. 41). Plaintiff failed to respond to the order; therefore, on May 11, 2011, the court issued an

order requiring Plaintiff to show cause, within twenty-one (21) days, why this action should not be

dismissed for failure to comply with an order of the court (Doc. 44). The time for compliance with

the show cause order has now elapsed, with no response from Plaintiff.

Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED:

That this case be DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with an

order of the court.

At Pensacola, Florida, this 6 day of June 2011. th

/s/ Elizabeth M. Timothy 

ELIZABETH M. TIMOTHY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:10-cv-00077-RV-EMT Document 46 Filed 06/06/11 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Any objections to these proposed findings and recommendations must be filed within

fourteen (14) days after being served a copy thereof. Any different deadline that may appear

on the electronic docket is for the court’s internal use only. A copy of objections shall be

served upon all other parties. Failure to object may limit the scope of appellate review of

factual findings. See 28 U.S.C. § 636; United States v. Roberts, 858 F.2d 698, 701 (11th Cir.

1988).

Case No: 3:10cv77/RV/EMT

Case 3:10-cv-00077-RV-EMT Document 46 Filed 06/06/11 Page 2 of 2
CERTIFICATION

I, Samir N. Masri, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Lincoln International
Corporation;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's
auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal
controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

                                    /s/ SAMIR N. MASRI
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    Name:  Samir N. Masri
                                    Title: Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
                                    Date:  August 23, 2005
Exhibit 99.1



                            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 Keystone  Consolidated  Industries,
Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David
L. Cheek, President and Chief Operating Officer (Chief Executive Officer) of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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; and

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



/s/  David L. Cheek

David L. Cheek
President and Chief Operating Officer
(Chief Executive Officer)
August 14, 2002
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

KRISTIN TREMMEL,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:10-cv-00017-SPM-AK

I C SYSTEM INC,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery (doc.

10), to which Defendant has not responded. Plaintiff moves to compel responses to

discovery she served on June 3, 2010, which included interrogatories, requests for

admission, and requests for production of documents. No responses to these discovery

requests have been made.

Defendant’s failure to file timely objections to Plaintiff’s request for production

of documents constitutes a waiver of the objections, and Defendant must provide all

requested documents which are within its possession, custody or control within the

meaning of Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a). Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. v. West, 748 F.2d 540

(10 Cir. 1984), pet. for cert. dism. 469 U.S. 1199 (1985); Perry v. Golub, 74 F.R.D. 360,

Case 1:10-cv-00017-SPM-GRJ Document 11 Filed 08/27/10 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

363 (N.D. Ala. 1976). Further, Defendant’s failure to respond timely to Plaintiff’s

interrogatories constitutes a waiver of any objections to those interrogatories, and it must

answer them fully. Fed. R. Civ. P. R. 33(b)(4). 

Finally, requests for admissions are deemed admitted if no written response is

made within thirty (30) days of service. Rule 36(a)(3), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery (doc. 10) is GRANTED and

Defendant shall respond without objection to the interrogatories and requests for

production of documents on or before September 10, 2010. All requests for admissions

served by Plaintiff on June 3, 2010, are hereby deemed admitted.

2. Plaintiff’s request for $750 in costs appears reasonable, and absent any

explanation or other response from Defendant, the Court finds that its failure to respond

to the discovery requests timely was not substantially justified and make an award of

such costs just. A check in this amount should be mailed to Plaintiff’s attorneys

forthwith.

DONE AND ORDERED this 27th day of August, 2010. 

 s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

Chief United States District Judge

Case No: 1:10-cv-00017-SPM-AK

Case 1:10-cv-00017-SPM-GRJ Document 11 Filed 08/27/10 Page 2 of 2
#### BURKHIMER v. COBLE, COMR. OF REVENUE

No. 33 PC.

Case below: 35 N.C. App. 127.

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 7 March 1978. Motion of Attorney General to dismiss appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question allowed 7 March 1978.
The Honorable Charles R. Wolle, Chief Judge, United States

1

District Court for the Southern District of Iowa.

___________

No. 95-2247

___________

United States of America, *

 *

Appellee, *

 * Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

 * Southern District of Iowa.

Willie B. Taylor, *

 * [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: February 27, 1996 

 Filed: March 11, 1996

___________

Before FAGG, BOWMAN, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Taylor was charged in one count of a four-count indictment with

conspiring to distribute cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C.

§§ 841(a)(1) and 846. Pursuant to a written plea agreement, Taylor agreed

to plead guilty to the charge, and also agreed to a sentence of 60 months

imprisonment. The plea agreement stated that the 60-month sentence

"comport[ed] with the amount of drugs attributable to [Taylor] and U.S.S.G.

6B1.2(c)(1)." Following Taylor's guilty plea, the district court1

sentenced him to 60 months imprisonment and four years supervised release,

and granted the government's motion to dismiss the remaining counts in the

indictment against Taylor. On appeal, Taylor's appointed counsel has filed

a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he

argues that the district court erred in its
-2-

drug-quantity determination at sentencing.

We conclude that Taylor waived any objection to the sentence the

district court imposed by agreeing that a 60-month sentence was the

mandatory minimum, accepting the benefits of his plea agreement, and

agreeing further that the sentence comported with the drug quantity

attributable to him. See United States v. Durham, 963 F.2d 185, 187 (8th

Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1023 (1992); United States v. Fritsch, 891

F.2d 667, 668 (8th Cir. 1989).

In accordance with Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we have

reviewed the record, and find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal.

Accordingly, we affirm. 

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 10.3


                                  STRAIGHT NOTE



         $350,000          South El Monte, California         November 28, 2000
-----------------


         For value received, Lee Pharmaceuticals promises to pay Mark DiSalvo or
order, at South El Monte, California the sum of THREE HUNDRED AND FIFTY THOUSAND
DOLLARS, with interest from November 28, 2000, on unpaid principal at the rate
of twenty (20) per cent per annum; principal is payable monthly, commencing on
January 10, 2001, with monthly principal payments of $6,000. Interest shall be
calculated on the basis of the unpaid principal balance daily, based on a
365-day year, actual day month and payable monthly. Principal and interest shall
be payable in lawful money of the United States. If action were instituted on
this note, I promise to pay such sum as the Court may fix as attorney's fees.






         NOVEMBER 28, 2000                        RONALD G. LEE
-----------------------------           -----------------------------------
         Date                           Lee Pharmaceuticals - Ronald G. Lee





         NOVEMBER 28, 2000                      MICHAEL L. AGRESTI
-----------------------------           -----------------------------------
         Date                           Lee Pharmaceuticals - Michael L. Agresti
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

ANTHONY D. GARLAND,

D.O.C. # L42997,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 4:10cv67-SPM/WCS

BROWARD SHERIFFS OFFICERS, 

et al.,

RE: OBSTRUCTION OF MAIL

 

Defendants,

____________________________/

ORDER

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court for consideration of the magistrate

judge’s report and recommendation (doc. 4) dated March 4, 2010. Plaintiff has

filed objections (doc.5) pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section

636(b)(1). 

Plaintiff explains that he did not intend to file a lawsuit with the court and

that he intended to send a complaint to the United States Marshal. By sending

his complaint to the court, however, it appeared that Plaintiff was trying to file a

lawsuit. To avoid confusion in the future, Plaintiff should not send documents to

the court for forwarding to law enforcement agencies. If Plaintiff wishes to report
Page 2 of 2

violations of the law to law enforcement agencies, he should contact the law

enforcement agencies and not the court.

I have determined that the report and recommendation should be adopted. 

As a private individual, Plaintiff cannot prosecute a criminal case. See O’Berry v.

State Attorney’s Office, 241 Fed. Appx. 654, 657 (11th Cir. 2007); Davit v. Davit,

173 Fed. Appx. 515, 518 (7th Cir. 2006). Furthermore, Plaintiff has three strikes

and therefore cannot proceed with this case without prepayment of the filing fee. 

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:

1. The magistrate judge’s report and recommendation (doc. 5) is

ADOPTED and incorporated by reference in this order.

2. This case is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

3. The clerk of court shall note on the docket that this case has been

dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

DONE AND ORDERED this 27th day of May, 2010.

 s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

Chief United States District Judge

 CASE NO. 4:10cv45-SPM/WCS
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-6502

ANTHONY PATTERSON, JR., 

Plaintiff - Appellant, 

v. 

ARTHUR R. HOLLAND; REBECCA A. REID; RUTH A. BROWN; TRACEY E. 

CLINE; ROBIN PENDERGRAFT; JED TAUB; JOHN G. BRITT, JR.; MICHAEL 

GLENN HOWELL, 

Defendants - Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at 

Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, District Judge. (1:20-cv-00931-CCE-LPA) 

Submitted: September 14, 2021 Decided: September 20, 2021

Before THACKER and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit 

Judge. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Anthony Patterson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2

PER CURIAM: 

Anthony Patterson, Jr., appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983 civil action.

*

 The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The magistrate judge recommended that the action be dismissed 

and advised Patterson that failure to file timely and specific objections to this 

recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the 

recommendation. 

The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is 

necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the 

parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Martin v. Duffy, 

858 F.3d 239, 245 (4th Cir. 2017); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 846-47 (4th Cir. 1985); 

see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 154-55 (1985). Patterson has waived appellate 

review by failing to file objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation after 

receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

AFFIRMED

* Although the district court dismissed Patterson’s action without prejudice, we 

conclude after review of the record in light of Bing v. Brivo Sys., LLC, 959 F.3d 605, 

610-12, 614-15 (4th Cir. 2020), that the dismissal is final and appealable.