alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# L_2021053EN.01009801.xml

| 16.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 53/98 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 53/98

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2021/180

of 9 February 2021

entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [‘Dalmatinska pečenica’ (PGI)]

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Croatia’s application to register the name ‘Dalmatinska pečenica’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Croatia’s application to register the name ‘Dalmatinska pečenica’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

| (2) | As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Dalmatinska pečenica’ should therefore be entered in the register, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Dalmatinska pečenica’ should therefore be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The name ‘Dalmatinska pečenica’ (PGI) is hereby entered in the register.

The name specified in the first paragraph denotes a product in Class 1.2. – Meat products (cooked, salted, smoked, etc.), as listed in Annex XI to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 (3).

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 9 February 2021.

For the Commission,

On behalf of the President,

Janusz WOJCIECHOWSKI

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ C 309, 18.9.2020, p. 9.

2

(3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 of 13 June 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 179, 19.6.2014, p. 36).

3

---
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6459

THOMAS WAYNE BATCHELOR, Petitioner - Appellant, versus JOHN L. BRYANT, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District for the Eastern District of North Carolina at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (CA-04-85-5) Submitted: June 23, 2005 Decided: July 1, 2005 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas Wayne Batchelor, Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Wallace-Smith, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Thomas Wayne Batchelor seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. An appeal may not be t aken from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Batchelor has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED
#### § 3701.5 Denials.

If the FOIA Coordinator determines that a requested record is exempt from mandatory disclosure and that discretionary release would be improper, the FOIA Coordinator shall give written notice of denial in accordance with § 1.7(a) of this title.
MAILING ADDRESS: UNITED AIR LINES, INC., 1025 CONNECTICUT AVENUE, N.W., SUITE 1210, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036 

STEVE MORRISSEY

MANAGING DIRECTOR—INTERNATIONAL & REGULATORY AFFAIRS

(202) 296-2733 

(202) 296-2873 FAX

STEVE.MORRISSEY@UNITED.COM

November 17, 2010 

Esta Rosenberg, Chief 

U.S. Carrier Licensing Division 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

Re: Notice of United Air Lines, Inc. and Air China 

 Docket DOT-OST-2003-16213 

Dear Ms. Rosenberg: 

Pursuant to the blanket Statement of Authorization granted to United Air Lines, Inc. 

(“United”) and Air China by Notice of Action Taken dated October 24, 2003, United hereby 

notifies the Department of the expansion of its code share with Air China involving the services 

listed below. 

 Air China’s “CA*” designator code will be placed on United-operated flights between the 

following city pairs: 

San Francisco, CA—Orlando, FL 

—Pittsburgh, PA 

—San Diego, CA 

 United’s “UA*” designator code will be placed on Air China-operated flights between the 

following city pairs: 

Shanghai—Chongqing 

—Qingdao 

—Shenzhen 
November 17, 2010 

Page 2 

 United and Air China have each filed timely applications seeking renewal of their 

respective exemption authorities supporting their code-share arrangement. Both applications 

remain pending with the Department. Moreover, the proposed code-share services are consistent 

with the U.S.-China Air Services Agreement, as amended. United and Air China plan to 

implement these services on or after December 20, 2010. 

Respectfully submitted, 

 Steve Morrissey 

 Managing Director, International & 

Regulatory Affairs 

cc: Thuy Cooper 

Service List 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that I have this date served a copy of the foregoing document on all 

persons named below by causing a copy to be sent via email: 

carl.nelson@aa.com 

donna.kooperstein@usdoj.gov 

dwight.moore@ustranscom.mil 

howard_kass@usairways.com 

dan.weiss@coair.com 

john.allen@faa.gov 

sascha.vanderbellen@delta.com 

urskr@state.gov 

 

Annalei Avanceña 

Advisor—Regulatory Affairs 

Dated: November 17, 2010
#### [The State ex rel.] Smith, Appellee, *v.*Industrial Commission of Ohio et al., Appellants.

[Cite as *State ex rel. Smith v. Indus. Comm.*(1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 100.]

(No. 96-464

Submitted August 19, 1998

Decided September 9, 1998.)

*White, Gatgey & Meyer Co., L.P.A.,*and *Barbara F. Florez,*for appellee.

*Betty D. Montgomery,*Attorney General, and *Steven P. Fixler,*Assistant Attorney General, for appellants.

*101The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed on the authority of *State ex rel. Tapp v. Parsee, Inc.*(1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 417, 696 N.E.2d .591, and the cause is remanded to the court of appeals.. '

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
#### § 3430.400 Applicability of regulations.

The regulations in this subpart apply to the program authorized under section 1672B of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (FACT Act), as amended by the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (FCEA), Public Law 110-246 (7 U.S.C. 5925b).
#### § 4279.217 Oversight and monitoring.

The Lender must permit representatives of the Agency (or other agencies of the United States) to inspect and make copies of any records of the Lender pertaining to Program guaranteed loans during regular office hours of the Lender or at any other time upon agreement between the Lender and the Agency. In addition, the Lender must cooperate fully with Agency oversight and monitoring of all Lenders involved in any manner with any loan guarantee under this Program to ensure compliance with this subpart. Such oversight and monitoring will include, but is not limited to, reviewing Lender records and meeting with Lenders (in accordance with § 4287.307(d) of this chapter).
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 Veterans Affairs

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under Public Law 92-463 (Federal Advisory Committee Act) that the Advisory Committee on Disability Compensation will meet on December 13-14, 2010, at the St. Regis Hotel, 923 16th Street, NW., Washington, DC, from 8:30 a.m. to 3 p.m. The meeting is open to the public.

The purpose of the Committee is to advise the Secretary of Veterans Affairs on the maintenance and periodic readjustment of the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities. The Committee is to assemble and review relevant information relating to the nature and character of disabilities arising from service in the Armed Forces, provide an ongoing assessment of the effectiveness of the rating schedule, and give advice on the most appropriate means of responding to the needs of Veterans relating to disability compensation.

The Committee will receive briefings on issues related to compensation for Veterans with service-connected disabilities and other VA benefits programs. Time will be allocated for receiving public comments in the afternoon each day. Public comments will be limited to three minutes each. Individuals wishing to make oral statements before the Committee will be accommodated on a first-come, first-served basis. Individuals who speak are invited to submit 1-2 page summaries of their comments at the time of the meeting for inclusion in the official meeting record.

                    The public may submit written statements for the Committee's review to Robert Watkins, Designated Federal Officer, Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Benefits Administration, Compensation and Pension Service, Regulation Staff (211D), 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420 or e-mail at                     *Robert.Watkins2@va,gov.*                     Any member of the public wishing to attend the meeting or seeking additional information should contact Mr. Watkins at (202) 461-9214.                

Dated: November 22, 2010.

By Direction of the Secretary.

Vivian Drake,

Acting Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 2010-29745 Filed 11-24-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

The Honorable Arthur L. Alarcón, United States Circuit Judge for the **

Ninth Circuit, sitting by designation.

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

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RODOLFO C. ANDERSON,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

TALISMAN, DR.,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 09-16911

D.C. No. 1:07-cv-00715-ALA

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Arthur L. Alarcón, Circuit Judge, Presiding**

Submitted September 13, 2010***

Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

FILED

OCT 05 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-16911

California state prisoner Rodolfo C. Anderson appeals pro se from the

district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that a

prison medical official forced him to take antipsychotic medications against his

will. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. 

Frost v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th Cir. 1998). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Anderson

failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the prison doctor

violated his constitutional rights by involuntarily medicating him. See Washington

v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210, 231-33 (1990); Kulas v. Valdez, 159 F.3d 453, 456 (9th

Cir. 1998).

We do not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal. See Smith

v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999).

Anderson’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.
Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC   Document 50   Filed 04/29/21   Page 1 of 4

Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC   Document 50   Filed 04/29/21   Page 2 of 4

Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC   Document 50   Filed 04/29/21   Page 3 of 4

Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC   Document 50   Filed 04/29/21   Page 4 of 4
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-10281

Conference Calendar

 

SUNBELT NATIONAL MORTGAGE CORPORATION,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

LEWIS T. MOHR, and all other occupants of 

7324 Buttonwood, Forth Worth, Texas, 76137;

CATHY LYNN MOHR,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:96-CV-958-Y

- - - - - - - - - -

June 16, 1998

Before DAVIS, PARKER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Lewis T. and Cathy Lynn Mohr appeal the district court’s

order remanding a forcible-detainer action to the Texas state

court, from which the Mohrs had removed the action to federal

court. The district court remanded the proceedings, citing both

a defect in the remand procedure and a lack of subject matter

jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
No. 97-10281

- 2 -

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d), and in accordance with Things

Remembered, Inc. v. Petrarca, 516 U.S. 124, 127-28 (1996), this

court has no jurisdiction to review a remand order based upon one

of the grounds listed in 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Even if the

district court was clearly erroneous in finding no jurisdiction,

this court cannot review the remand. Tillman v. CSX

Transportation Inc., 929 F.2d 1023, 1028 (5th Cir. 1991);

Thermatron Products, Inc. v. Hermansdorfer, 423 U.S. 336, 343

(1976). 

This court also lacks jurisdiction because the Mohrs’ notice

of appeal was untimely filed. See Ryals v. Estelle, 661 F.2d

904, 905 (5th Cir. 1981); FED. R. APP. P. 4(a)(1). Accordingly,

the Mohrs’ appeal must be DISMISSED.

The Mohrs’ motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) on

appeal is DENIED as moot.

APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION TO PROCEED IFP DENIED.
#### § 28.39 [Reserved]
2006-0255.

#### Volibar Realty Co. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision.

Board of Tax Appeals, Nos. 2003-T-633, 2003-T-648, and 2003-T-649. This cause is pending before the court as an appeal from the Board of Tax Appeals. Upon consideration of the parties’ joint motion to remand this cause to the Board of Tax Appeals,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that the motion is granted and this cause is remanded to the Board of Tax Appeals to implement the settlement agreement of the parties.
```

[108th Congress Public Law 390]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[DOCID: f:publ390.108]

[[Page 118 STAT. 2242]]

Public Law 108-390
108th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To amend section 274A of the Immigration and Nationality Act to improve 
       the process for verifying an individual's eligibility for 
           employment. <<NOTE: Oct. 30, 2004 -  [H.R. 4306]>> 

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

SECTION 1. IMPROVEMENTS TO EMPLOYMENT VERIFICATION SYSTEM.

    (a) In General.--Section 274A(b) of the Immigration and Nationality 
Act (8 U.S.C. 1324a(b)) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1)(A), by inserting before ``A person or 
        entity has complied'' the following: ``Such attestation may be 
        manifested by either a hand-written or an electronic 
        signature.'';
            (2) in paragraph (2), by adding at the end the following: 
        ``Such attestation may be manifested by either a hand-written or 
        an electronic signature.''; and
            (3) in paragraph (3), by inserting ``a paper, microfiche, 
        microfilm, or electronic version of'' after ``must retain''.

    (b) <<NOTE: 8 USC 1324a note.>> Effective Date.--The amendments made 
by subsection (a) shall take effect on the earlier of--
            (1) the date on which final regulations implementing such 
        amendments take effect; or
            (2) 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

    Approved October 30, 2004.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 4306:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 108-731 (Comm. on the Judiciary).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 150 (2004):
            Oct. 6, considered and passed House.
            Oct. 11, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
CD

CD

CD0B

—. ———S z

.-

I CD = CD

—. —

0

CD

N

I

I

0

(,- .‘
/

/

— 4-
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S FORM 10-KSB FOR THE TRANSITION PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-KSB.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   7-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                       2,483,739
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  329,309
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (28,261)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,961,887
<PP&E>                                       1,575,478
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1,063,874)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,905,999
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          763,739
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      2,772
<COMMON>                                        72,503
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,905,999
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,614,154
<CGS>                                        3,740,468
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,284,069
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (74,059)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (1,838)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                661,838
<INCOME-TAX>                                    86,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            575,838
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                      470,000
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,045,838
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.10



</TABLE>
§ 400.305 Assignment of Nonstandard Classifications. ( a ) Assignment of a Nonstandard Classification of assigned yields, assigned yield factors, or premium rates shall be made on forms approved by the Corporation and included in the actuarial tables for the county.
( b ) Nonstandard classification assignment will be made each year, for the year identified on the assignment forms, and are not subject to change under the provisions of this subpart by the Corporation for that year when included in the actuarial tables for the county, except as a result of a request for reconsideration as provided in section 400.309, or as the result of appeals under 7 CFR part 11.
( c ) A nonstandard classification may be assigned to identified insurable acreage; a person; or to a combination of person and identified acreage for a crop or crop practice, type, variety, or crop option or amendment whereby: ( 1 ) Classifications assigned to identified insurable acreage apply to all acres of the insured crop grown on the identified acreage;
( 2 ) Classifications assigned to a person apply to all insurable acres of the insured crop on which the person and any entity in which the person has substantial beneficial interest is actively engaged in farming; and
( 3 ) Classifications assigned to a combination of a person and identified insurable acreage will only apply to those acres of the insured crop grown on the identified acreage on which the named person is actively engaged in producing such crop.
[55 FR 32595, Aug. 10, 1990, as amended at 62 FR 22877, Apr. 28, 1997]
#### § 4280.500 OMB control number.

The reporting and recordkeeping requirements contained in this part have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the provisions of 44 U.S.C. chapter 35 and have been assigned OMB control number 0570-0070 in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. You are not required to respond to this collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number.

[88 FR 86570, Dec. 14, 2023]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs. CASE NO. 4:02cr26-SPM/AK

OSCAR LEE LENTON,

Defendant.

__________________________/

ORDER

THIS CAUSE comes for consideration upon the magistrate judge’s report

and recommendation dated February 21, 2008 (doc. 115). Defendant has been

furnished a copy of the report and recommendation and filed a premature notice

of appeal (117), which will be treated as a generalized objection. 

Pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1), I find that the

report and recommendation is correct and should be adopted. Accordingly, it is 

ORDERED as follows:

1. The magistrate judge’s report and recommendation (doc. 115) is

ADOPTED and incorporated by reference in this order.

2. Defendant’s motion to vacate (doc. 95) is denied.

3. Defendant is advised that if he intends to appeal to the Eleventh

Circuit Court of Appeals he must file another notice of appeal within the time limit

Case 4:02-cr-00026-MW-AK Document 118 Filed 03/13/08 Page 1 of 2
 

prescribed by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a).

DONE AND ORDERED this 13th day of March, 2008.

 s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

United States District Judge

Case 4:02-cr-00026-MW-AK Document 118 Filed 03/13/08 Page 2 of 2