alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# L_2013305EN.01000101.xml

| 15.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 305/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 305/1

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1146/2013

of 5 November 2013

entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Cebolla Fuentes de Ebro (PDO)]

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| (1) | Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 repealed and replaced Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 repealed and replaced Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (2).

| (2) | Pursuant to Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Spain’s application to register the name ‘Cebolla Fuentes de Ebro’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (3). |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Pursuant to Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Spain’s application to register the name ‘Cebolla Fuentes de Ebro’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (3).

| (3) | As no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Cebolla Fuentes de Ebro’ should therefore be entered in the register, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

As no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Cebolla Fuentes de Ebro’ should therefore be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.

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, 5 November 2013.

For the Commission, On behalf of the President,

Dacian CIOLOȘ

Member of the Commission

---

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

1

(2)  
  OJ L 93, 31.3.2006, p. 12.

2

(3)  
  OJ C 375, 5.12.2012, p. 18.

3

---

ANNEX

Agricultural products intended for human consumption listed in Annex I to the Treaty:

Class 1.6.   Fruit, vegetables and cereals, fresh or processed

SPAIN

Cebolla Fuentes de Ebro (PDO)

---
[Cite as Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Jacob, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2018-Ohio-2467.] 

OHIO STATE BAR ASSOCIATION v. JACOB. 

[Cite as Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Jacob, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2018-Ohio-2467.] 

(No. 2016-1488—Submitted June 22, 2018—Decided June 26, 2018.) 

ON APPLICATION FOR REINSTATEMENT. 

____________________ 

{¶ 1} This cause came on for further consideration upon the filing of an 

application for reinstatement by respondent, Harry Joseph Jacob III, Attorney 

Registration No. 0008620, last known address in Solon, Ohio. 

{¶ 2} The court coming now to consider its order of May 10, 2017, 

wherein the court, pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(12)(A)(3), suspended respondent 

from the practice of law for a period of two years, with the second year stayed on 

the condition that he commit no further misconduct, finds that respondent has 

substantially complied with that order and with the provisions of Gov.Bar R. 

V(24). 

{¶ 3} Therefore, it is ordered by this court that respondent is reinstated to 

the practice of law in the state of Ohio. 

{¶ 4} It is further ordered that the clerk of this court issue certified copies 

of this order as provided for in Gov.Bar R. V(17)(D)(1) and that publication be 

made as provided for in Gov.Bar R. V(17)(D)(2). 

{¶ 5} For earlier case, see Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Jacob, 150 Ohio St.3d 

162, 2017-Ohio-2733, 80 N.E.3d 440. 

O’CONNOR, C.J., and O’DONNELL, KENNEDY, FRENCH, FISCHER, DEWINE,

and DEGENARO, JJ., concur. 

________________________
13.301 Governmentwide commercial purchase card.       (a)                    						            Except as provided in 32.1108(b)(2), the Governmentwide commercial purchase card is authorized for use in making and/or paying for purchases of supplies, services, or construction. The Governmentwide commercial purchase card may be used by contracting officers and other individuals designated in accordance with 1.603-3. The card may be used only for purchases that are otherwise authorized by law or regulation.                                          (b)                    						            Agencies using the Governmentwide commercial purchase card shall establish procedures for use and control of the card that comply with the Treasury Financial Manual for Guidance of Departments and Agencies (TFM 4-4500) and that are consistent with the terms and conditions of the current GSA credit card contract. Agency procedures should not limit the use of the Governmentwide commercial purchase card to micro-purchases. Agency procedures should encourage use of the card in greater dollar amounts by contracting officers to place orders and to pay for purchases against contracts established under part  8 procedures, when authorized; and to place orders and/or make payment under other contractual instruments, when agreed to by the contractor. See 32.1110(d) for instructions for use of the appropriate clause when payment under a written contract will be made through use of the card.                                          (c)                    						            The Governmentwide commercial purchase card may be used to-                                                         (1)                          								                Make micro-purchases;                                                            (2)                          								                Place a task or delivery order (if authorized in the basic contract, basic ordering agreement, or blanket purchase agreement); or                                                            (3)                          								                Make payments, when the contractor agrees to accept payment by the card (but see 32.1108(b)(2)).    **Parent topic:** Subpart 13.3 - Simplified Acquisition Methods
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

CLYDE LACY RATTLER, ) 

) 

Petitioner, ) 

FILED 

JUl 1 9 2010 

Clerk. U.S. District & Bankru tc 

Courts for the District of CO'U~bra 

) 

v. ) 

) 

Civil Action No. 10 1213 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, ) 

) 

Respondent. ) 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

This matter comes before the Court on review of petitioner's application to proceed in 

forma pauperis and.his pro se petition for a writ of mandamus. The Court will grant the 

application and deny the petition. 

Mandamus relief is proper only if"(l) the plaintiff has a clear right to relief; (2) the 

defendant has a clear duty to act; and (3) there is no other adequate remedy available to plaintiff." 

Council of and for the Blind of Delaware County Valley v. Regan, 709 F.2d 1521,1533 (D.C. 

Cir. 1983) (en banc). The party seeking mandamus has the "burden of showing that [his] right to 

issuance of the writ is 'clear and indisputable.'" Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas 

Corp., 485 U.S. 271, 289 (1988) (citing Bankers Life & Cas. Co. v. Holland, 346 U.S. 379, 384 

(1953)). Where the action petitioner seeks to compel is discretionary, he has no clear right to 

relief and mandamus therefore is not an appropriate remedy. See, e.g., Heckler v. Ringer, 466 

U.S. 602, 616 (1984). Petitioner does not establish any of these elements. 

Petitioner alleges that he submitted an application for benefits under the Federal Labor 

Compensation Act, CompI. ~ 3, and that the defendant failed to process it, id. ~ 4. According to 
petitioner, the defendant has a "ministerial duty and honor to except [sic] and process [the] 

application," id. ~ 5, yet has refused to do so, see id. ~ 7. He demands a court order compelling 

the defendant to accept and to process his application, and he demands an award "in the amount 

of an unlimited sum of money." Id. ~ 9. Based on these conclusory allegations, the Court 

concludes that petitioner fails to show his clear right to relief, the Labor Department's clear duty 

to act, and the lack of any other remedy. His petition will be denied. 

An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion will be issued separately on this 

same date. 

Date: M If) I 02 '010
Case 3:20-cv-05893-MCR-HTC Document 1 Filed 10/20/20 Page 1 of 8
Case 3:20-cv-05893-MCR-HTC Document 1 Filed 10/20/20 Page 2 of 8
Case 3:20-cv-05893-MCR-HTC Document 1 Filed 10/20/20 Page 3 of 8
Case 3:20-cv-05893-MCR-HTC Document 1 Filed 10/20/20 Page 4 of 8
Case 3:20-cv-05893-MCR-HTC Document 1 Filed 10/20/20 Page 5 of 8
Case 3:20-cv-05893-MCR-HTC Document 1 Filed 10/20/20 Page 6 of 8
Case 3:20-cv-05893-MCR-HTC Document 1 Filed 10/20/20 Page 7 of 8
Case 3:20-cv-05893-MCR-HTC Document 1 Filed 10/20/20 Page 8 of 8
§ 51.1862 Application of tolerances. The contents of individual packages in the lot, based on sample inspection, are subject to the following limitations: ( a ) For packages which contain more than 5 pounds (2.27 kg), and a tolerance of 10 percent or more is provided, individual packages shall have not more than 11 ⁄ 2 times the tolerance specified, and for a tolerance of less than 10 percent individual packages shall have not more than double the tolerance specified, except that at least one defective and one off size specimen may be allowed in any package: *Provided,* That the averages for the entire lot are within the tolerances specified for the grade; and,
( b ) For packages which contain 5 pounds (2.27 kg) or less individual packages shall have not more than 4 times the tolerance specified, except that at least one tomato which is soft, or affected by decay, and one off-size specimen may be permitted in any package: *Provided,* That the averages for the entire lot are within the tolerances specified for the grade.
#### In the Matter of Patrick T. Mellor, Petitioner, v Alan G. Hevesi, as State Comptroller, et al., Respondents.

[814 NYS2d 408]

Crew III, J.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent Comptroller which denied petitioner’s application for accidental disability retirement benefits.

Petitioner, a claims investigator, allegedly sustained various injuries when he tripped and fell while walking on the unpaved portion of a roadway near his office. Petitioner’s application for accidental disability retirement benefits was denied, and he requested and was granted a hearing and redetermination. At *1206the conclusion of the hearing, at which petitioner was the only witness to appear and testify, the hearing officer denied petitioner’s application, finding that petitioner was not actually engaged in the performance of his duties at the time of the underlying incident. Respondent Comptroller upheld that determination, prompting petitioner to commence this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 challenging the denial of his application.

The Comptroller is vested with the exclusive authority to determine whether an accidental injury was sustained while in the performance of a petitioner’s duties, and the determination in that regard, if supported by substantial evidence, will not be disturbed *(see Matter of Waldron v McCall,*302 AD2d 742, 743 [2003], *lv denied*100 NY2d 503 [2003]). Here, petitioner argues that the only evidence in the record that would support a finding that he was engaged in a personal errand at the time of the incident—namely, his application for accidental disability retirement benefits and the employer’s accident report—was not relied upon by either the hearing officer or the Comptroller and, as such, may not properly be considered by this Court. While petitioner indeed is correct that we cannot confirm an administrative determination upon a ground not invoked by the agency *(see Matter of Berchielli v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Westerlo,*202 AD2d 733, 734 [1994], *lv denied*83 NY2d 757 [1994]), petitioner’s argument on this point overlooks the fact that his own testimony provides substantial evidence to support the Comptroller’s determination. In this regard, although petitioner testified that it was his plan to take the subway from Manhattan, where his office was located, to the Bronx, where he was scheduled to perform some field work, he acknowledged that he also planned to stop en route to the subway station to purchase a cup of coffee before going to a local bank to deposit his paycheck. As petitioner testified that his fall occurred within approximately 100 feet of his place of employment, the Comptroller’s determination that petitioner was engaged in a personal errand at the time of his fall is supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. Accordingly, the underlying determination is confirmed.

Cardona, P.J., Peters, Spain and Mugglin, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
#### § 51.2283 Off color.

The term “off color” is not a color classification, but shall be applied to any lot which fails to meet the requirements of the “amber” classification when applying the color classifications in the USDA Walnut Color Chart. Off color shall not be used for “red” color.

[82 FR 39657, Aug. 22, 2017]
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2565 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2565

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             August 1, 2013

     Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
   To provide for the termination of employment of employees of the 
    Internal Revenue Service who take certain official actions for 
                          political purposes.

    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 ``Stop Targeting Our Politics IRS 
Act'' or as the ``STOP IRS Act''.

SEC. 2. TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT OF INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE EMPLOYEES 
              FOR TAKING OFFICIAL ACTIONS FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES.

    Paragraph (10) of section 1203(b) of the Internal Revenue Service 
Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 is amended to read as follows:
            ``(10) performing, delaying, or failing to perform (or 
        threatening to perform, delay, or fail to perform) any official 
        action (including any audit) with respect to a taxpayer for 
        purpose of extracting personal gain or benefit or for a 
        political purpose.''.

            Passed the House of Representatives July 31, 2013.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
In the Matter of 

United States of America 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

RECEIVED 

DEC 3 1 2012 

HEARING DOCKET 

Southwest Airlines Co. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

FAA Case No. 2010SW290037 

Docket No. 2013-A WA-CPP-16372 

FDMS No. FAA 2012-1259 

WITHDRAWAL OF REQUEST FOR HEARING 

COMES NOW Respondent Southwest Airlines Co., through counsel, and 

pursuant to 14 CFR Section 13.215 hereby withdraws its Request for Hearing in FAA 

Case No. 2010SW290037. 

Dated: December 28,2012 

Respectfully submitted, 

Dane B. Jaques, Esq. 

Dombroff Gihnore Jaques & French, PC 

1676 International Drive, Penthouse 

McLean, VA 22102 

(703) 336-8800 

djaques@dglitigators.com 

Counsel for Respondent Southwest Airlines Co. 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that I have this day served the original and one copy of the 

foregoing WITHDRAWAL OF REQUEST FOR HEARING on the following, at the 

address indicated, via UPS overnight delivery: 

Hearing Docket 

Federal Aviation Administration 

600 Independence Avenue, SW 

Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2W1 000 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

And have served a copy on the following, at the address indicated, via email and UPS 

overnight delivery: 

Signed: 

Dated: 

Yolanda Ayala Bernal, Esq. 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of Regional Counsel 

Southwest Region 

2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663 

Fort Worth, TX 76137 

Yolanda.A.Bernal@faa.gov 

Dane B. Jaques 

Counsel for Respondent 

December 28, 2012 

2
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 4:96cr52-RH/WCS

4:06cv17-RH/WCS

JONATHAN ARNESS WESTON, 4:06cv28-RH/WCS

and DENNIS DEWAYNE JOHNSON,

Defendants.

____________________________________/

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

This matter is before the court on the magistrate judge’s report and

recommendation (document 230), to which no objections have been filed. The

report and recommendation correctly concludes that defendants’ successive

motions under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 must be summarily dismissed for failure to obtain

the required authorization from the court of appeals. It perhaps bears noting, also,

that even if defendants were to be sentenced de novo based on advisory guidelines,

it would make no difference; the court’s original sentence would have been the

same, and would be the same if imposed today, even based on advisory rather than

Case 4:96-cr-00052-RH-WCS Document 231 Filed 06/05/06 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No: 4:96cr52-RH/WCS, 4:06cv17-RH/WCS and 4:06cv28-RH/WCS

mandatory guidelines. 

The report and recommendation is ACCEPTED and adopted as the opinion

of the court. For the reasons set forth there,

IT IS ORDERED:

The clerk shall enter judgment stating, “Defendants’ successive motions

under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (documents 227 and 228) are DISMISSED.” The clerk

shall close the file.

SO ORDERED this 3d day of June, 2006.

s/Robert L. Hinkle 

Chief United States District Judge 

Case 4:96-cr-00052-RH-WCS Document 231 Filed 06/05/06 Page 2 of 2
# L_2021277EN.01002501.xml

| 2.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 277/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 277/25

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2021/1258

of 26 July 2021

entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (‘Őrségi tökmagolaj’ (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, Hungary’s application to register the name ‘Őrségi tökmagolaj’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Hungary’s application to register the name ‘Őrségi tökmagolaj’ 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 ‘Őrségi tökmagolaj’ 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 ‘Őrségi tökmagolaj’ should therefore be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The name ‘Őrségi tökmagolaj’ (PGI) is hereby entered in the register.

The name specified in the first paragraph denotes a product in Class 1.5. – Oils and fats (butter, margarine, oil, 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, 26 July 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 103, 25.3.2021, p. 18.

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

---
EXHIBIT 32.1




CERTIFICATIONS 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 of Comverge, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), R. Blake Young, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, does hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, that to his 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.







/s/R. Blake YoungR. Blake YoungPresident and Chief Executive OfficerMarch 9, 2011




The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. CASE NO. 1:02-cr-00043-MP-AK

JOCELYNN DENAY BANKS,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

O R D E R 

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 484, Consent Motion to Continue, filed by the

Government. In its motion, the Government requests that Defendant’s revocation hearing, which

is currently scheduled for Friday, March 6, 2009, be continued in order to accommodate a

witness’ scheduling conflict. Defendant is unopposed to the request. Upon consideration, the

Court finds that the motion should be granted. Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

The Consent Motion to Continue, Doc. 484, is GRANTED. The revocation hearing for

JOCELYNN DENAY BANKS is reset to Wednesday, March 11, 2009, at 11:00 a.m.

DONE AND ORDERED this 4th day of March, 2009

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case 1:02-cr-00043-MP-GRJ Document 485 Filed 03/04/09 Page 1 of 1