alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2013011EN.01008502.xml

| 15.1.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 11/85 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.1.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 11/85

---

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein (Recast)’

COM(2012) 403 final — 2012/0196 (COD)

2013/C 11/20

On 11 September 2012 the European Parliament and on 12 September the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 192(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, on the

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein

(Recast)

(Recast)

COM(2012) 403 final — 2012/0196 (COD).

Since the Committee endorses the content of the proposal, it decided, at its 484th plenary session of 14 and 15 November 2012 (meeting of 14 November 2012), with 151 votes in favour and 5 abstentions, to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text.

Brussels, 14 November 2012.

The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Staffan NILSSON

---
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. SUSAN LAFOR GE,

De fe nda nt-Appe l la

nt. No. 15-30240

D.C . No. 1:11-c r-00033-SPW
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of M o nta

na Susa n P. W atte rs, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d July 26, 2016 ** B e fore : SC HR O EDER , C ANB Y, a n d C ALLAHAN, C irc uit Judge s. Susa n La forge a

p pe a l s from

the 6-m onth se nte nc e and 30-m onth te rm of supe rvise d re le a se im

pose d upon re voc ation of supervise d re le a se , a s we ll a s the distric t c o urt’ s orde r de ny ing he r pro se m otion to re vise he r te rm of supe rvise d 

# FIL ED AUG 02 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).re le a se . W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e a ffirm in pa rt a nd dism iss in pa

rt. La forge argue s tha

t he r se nte n c e is substa

ntive ly unre a sona

ble . La forge ’ s notic e of a

ppe a l wa s file d ove r four m onths a fte r the e ntry of judgm e nt. He r a ppe a l of he r se nte nc e is, the re fore , untim e ly
. Se e Fe d. R
. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A). B e c a use the gove rnm e nt ha s prope rly obje c te d to theuntim e line ss, we dism iss La forge ’ s a

ppe a l of he r se nte nc e . Se e Unite d State s v . Sadle r , 480 F.3d 932, 942 (9th C ir. 2007). La forge ’ s pro se notic e of a ppe a l re fle c ts tha

t she is a lso c ha lle nging the distric t c o urt’ s de n ia l of he r m otion to re vise he r te rm of supe rvise d re le a se . La forge ’ s a

ppe a l from that de nia l is tim e ly , but la c ks m e rit. As the distric t c ourt sta te d, it ha d no a

uthority to te rm inate La forge ’ s te rm of supe rvise d re le a se at the tim e she file d he r m otion. Se e18 U.S.C . § 3583(e )(1) (a distric t c ourt m ay te rm inate a

te rm of supe rvise d re le a se but only “ a fte r the e xpiration of oney e ar of supe rvise d re le a se ” ). AFFIRM E D in par t; DISM ISSE D in par t.

1 5
- 3 0 2 4 0 2
##### 



EXHIBIT 12.1 GRACECHURCH CARD FUNDING (NO. 4) 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 Gracechurch Card
Funding (No. 4) 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
#### STATE v. BROWN

No. 35 PC.

Case below: 34 N.C. App. 750.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 7 March 1978.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 218 (Tuesday, November 13, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 63916]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-5617]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial 
Research Special Emphasis Panel. To review T32s received under PAR-
05-101 & PAR-07-332.
    Date: February 25, 2008.
    Time: 8:30 a.m. to 6 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Bethesda Marriott, 5151 Pooks Hill Road, Bethesda, MD 
20814.
    Contact Person: Mary Kelly, Scientific Review Officer, National 
Institute of Dental and Crainofacial Res., 45 Center Drive, Natcher 
Bldg., RM 4AN38F, Bethesda, MD 20892-6402, (301) 594-4809, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#abc6cad9d2f4c0cec7c7d2ebc5c2c385ccc4dd"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2a474b585375414f4646536a444342044d455c">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.121, Oral 
Diseases and Disorders Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: November 2, 2007.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 07-5617 Filed 11-9-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Cite as 2015 Ark. 380



## SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CR-15-274 JONATHAN BERKS APPELLANT V.

STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE Opinion Delivered October 22, 2015 APPELLEE’S MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL [GARLAND COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, NO. 26CR-10-248] HONORABLE JOHN HOMER WRIGHT, JUDGE MOTION DENIED; BRIEFING SCHEDULE TO BE SET.

PER CURIAM Appellant Jonathan Berks filed a motion in this court to proceed with a belated appeal of the dismissal of his timely petition under Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.1 (2014). Because Berks was not provided timely notice of an order that disposed of a motion for a ruling on omitted issues, the motion was granted. Berks v. State , 2015 Ark. 234, 463 S.W.3d 289 (per curiam). The appellee State has now filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the basis that Berks failed to file a brief. We deny the motion. Although the State asserts that Berks has failed to timely file his brief, through clerical error, no briefing schedule was set. Berks has therefore not failed to submit a timely brief, and our clerk is again directed to set a briefing schedule. Motion denied; briefing schedule to be set.
Exhibit 32.01



CERTIFICATION



Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, for the purposes of section 1350 of chapter 63 of title 18 of the United States Code, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in his capacity as an officer of Intersil Corporation (Intersil), that the Annual Report of Intersil on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2004, fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of Intersil. This written statement is being
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to such Form 10-K.



|                     |  |     |  |                                           
|-------------------- |  | --- |  | ------------------------------------------
|Date: March 16, 2005 |  | By: |  | /s/ Richard M. Beyer                      
|                     |  |     |  | Richard M. Beyer Chief Executive
Officer  
|                     |  |    
|Date: March 16, 2005 |  | By: |  | /s/ Daniel J. Heneghan                    
|                     |  |     |  | Daniel J. Heneghan Chief Financial
Officer



79
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

      ( print page 64659)    
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Special Emphasis Panel; Rehabilitation Research Training and Proprioceptive Deficits on Ankle Motor Adaptation.                     

*Date:*                         December 4, 2007.                    

*Time:*                         1 p.m. to 4 p.m.                     

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                     

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, 6100 Executive Boulevard, 5B01, Rockville, MD 20852 (Telephone Conference Call).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Gopal M. Bhatnagar, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, 6100 Bldg Rm 5B01, Rockville, MD 20852, (301) 435-6889,                         *bhatnagg@mail.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.864, Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research; 93.209, Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: November 7, 2007.

Jennifer Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 07-5673 Filed 11-15-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
DOWD, J.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

Billy G. Schindewolf, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

Seymour Construction, Inc., et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. 5:10-CV-00204

JUDGMENT ENTRY

For the reasons set forth in the Memorandum Opinion and Order filed

contemporaneously with this Judgment Entry, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that Defendants’ Motion to

Dismiss is DENIED;

IT IS FURTHER HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that Defendants’

Motion to Transfer this case to the United States District Court, Northern District of Florida is

GRANTED.

The Clerk is directed to transfer this case to the United States District Court, Northern

District of Florida by sending the same to the Clerk for the United States District Court,

Northern District of Florida at 111 N. Adams St. Tallahassee, FL 32301.

This case is closed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

June 3, 2010 

Date

 s/ David D. Dowd, Jr.

David D. Dowd, Jr.

U.S. District Judge
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 Optio Software, Inc. (the Company)
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended January 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, C. Wayne Cape, 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, as amended; 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: April 29, 2005 |  | By: |  | /s/ C. Wayne Cape      
|                     |  |     |  | C. Wayne Cape          
|                     |  |     |  | Chief Executive Officer



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 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.



This certification accompanies the annual report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed to be filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, nor shall it be deemed to be a separate disclosure document.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 26, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

131571 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 131571 

 COA: 268847 

Wayne CC: 04-009112-01

TERRELL JUAN JOHNSON,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 12, 2006 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

p0918 

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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 26, 2006 

 Clerk
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 226 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 226

  To clarify the rights of Indians and Indian Tribes on Indian lands 
                under the National Labor Relations Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 24, 2019

    Mr. Moran (for himself, Mr. Gardner, Mr. Risch, Mr. Thune, Mr. 
 Lankford, Mr. Daines, and Mr. Rounds) introduced the following bill; 
  which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To clarify the rights of Indians and Indian Tribes on Indian lands 
                under the National Labor Relations Act.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act of 
2019''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF EMPLOYER.

    Section 2 of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 152) is 
amended--
            (1) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``or any Indian Tribe, 
        or any enterprise or institution owned and operated by an 
        Indian Tribe and located on its Indian lands,'' after 
        ``subdivision thereof,''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
    ``(15) The term `Indian Tribe' means any Indian Tribe, band, 
nation, pueblo, or other organized group or community which is 
recognized as eligible for the special programs and services provided 
by the United States to Indians because of their status as Indians.
    ``(16) The term `Indian' means any individual who is a member of an 
Indian Tribe.
    ``(17) The term `Indian lands' means--
            ``(A) all lands within the limits of any Indian 
        reservation;
            ``(B) any lands title to which is either held in trust by 
        the United States for the benefit of any Indian Tribe or Indian 
        or held by any Indian Tribe or Indian subject to restriction by 
        the United States against alienation; and
            ``(C) any lands in the State of Oklahoma that are within 
        the boundaries of a former reservation (as defined by the 
        Secretary of the Interior) of a federally recognized Indian 
        Tribe.''.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2009097EN.01000202.xml

| 28.4.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 97/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 97/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5449 — ABF/Azucarera)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2009/C 97/03

On 30 March 2009, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32009M5449. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu). |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32009M5449. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---
N OTE : This order is nonprecedential

. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________
TODD SCHAEFFER, Plaintiff

- Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES, Defendant

- Appellee

______________________

2022

- 2144

______________________ Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in No. 1:20

- cv

- 01498

- RTH, Judge Ryan T. Holte.

______________________

ON MOTION

______________________

P ER C URIAM

. O R D E R

Todd S c haeffer mo ves to stay the mandate , ECF Nos. 29 and 30.

On November 17, 2022, this court granted the government’s motion to dismiss this appeal as untimely and issued the mandate in accordance with Federal Circuit Rule
41. Mr. Schaffer has shown no bas is to recall the mandate; nor does the court understand his filing as either seeking Case: 22-2144 Document: 31 Page: 1 Filed: 12/23/2022SCHAEFFER v. US 2

rehearing or reconsideration of the court’s order or requesting additional time in which to do so.

Upon consideration thereof,

I T I S O RDERED T HAT :

The confidential and non

- confidential versions of the motion are accepted for filing and denied.

December 23

, 2022 Date F OR THE C OURT

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner Peter R. Marksteiner Clerk of Court Case: 22-2144 Document: 31 Page: 2 Filed: 12/23/2022