alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Official Journal L 12/2013

| | ISSN 1977-0677
  doi:10.3000/19770677.L_2013.012.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 12 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 5616 January 2013 |

ISSN 1977-0677

doi:10.3000/19770677.L_2013.012.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 12

English edition

Legislation

Volume 5616 January 2013

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | DECISIONS |
| | | 2013/8/EU |
| | * | Commission Decision of 12 June 2012 on the measures SA. 27420 (C 12/2009) (ex N 19/2009) implemented by Finland for Osuuskunta Karjaportti
  (notified under document C(2012) 3249)

   (1) | 1 |
| | | 2013/9/EU |
| | * | Commission Decision of 25 July 2012 on the State aid no SA.33114 (2012/C) (ex. 2011/NN) — Poland Alleged aid to Crist Shipyard
  (notified under document C(2012) 5057)

   (1) | 38 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

DECISIONS

2013/8/EU

*

Commission Decision of 12 June 2012 on the measures SA. 27420 (C 12/2009) (ex N 19/2009) implemented by Finland for Osuuskunta Karjaportti
  (notified under document C(2012) 3249)

   (1)

(notified under document C(2012) 3249)

1

2013/9/EU

*

Commission Decision of 25 July 2012 on the State aid no SA.33114 (2012/C) (ex. 2011/NN) — Poland Alleged aid to Crist Shipyard
  (notified under document C(2012) 5057)

   (1)

o

(notified under document C(2012) 5057)

38

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
No. 50640.

#### Protests 820089-G, etc., of Barry Importing Co. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

The protests were dismissed.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

FRANKIE E. LEE,

Plaintiff,

vs. Civil Action 2:12-CV-537

Judge Graham

Magistrate Judge King

MICHAEL DEWINE, et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER

On August 20, 2012, the United States Magistrate Judge

recommended that this action be dismissed. Report and Recommendation,

Doc. No. 6. This matter is now before the Court on plaintiff’s

Receipt, Response, Doc. No. 8 [“Plaintiff’s Response”].

This action is apparently intended as a challenge to the

calculation of plaintiff’s state court sentence. The Magistrate Judge

reasoned that, to the extent that plaintiff intends by this action to

challenge the duration of his sentence, his only remedy is a writ of

habeas corpus. Report and Recommendation, p. 2, citing Preiser v.

Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). The Magistrate Judge went on to

conclude that, because plaintiff had not demonstrated exhaustion of

his state court remedies, the action could not proceed as a habeas

corpus action under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Id.

Plaintiff’s Response does not object to the reasoning of the

Magistrate Judge or to the recommendation that the action be

dismissed. Instead, plaintiff asks only that, “upon completion of

plaintiffs remedy phase, (State), [he] retain the right to enter this

District Court, In good standings.” Id. [sic].

This Court agrees that, for the reasons articulated by the

Magistrate Judge, the action must be dismissed. Moreover, the Court

Case: 2:12-cv-00537-JLG-NMK Doc #: 9 Filed: 09/07/12 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
cannot, at this juncture, assure plaintiff that any future litigation

instituted by plaintiff in this Court can proceed.

The Report and Recommendation, Doc. No. 6, is ADOPTED AND

AFFIRMED.

This action is hereby DISMISSED.

The Clerk shall enter FINAL JUDGMENT.

Date: September 7, 2012 s/James L. Graham 

 James L. Graham

 United States District Judge

2

Case: 2:12-cv-00537-JLG-NMK Doc #: 9 Filed: 09/07/12 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

LEONARD G. PAIGE,

Plaintiff,

 Case No. 2:12-cv-764

v. JUDGE GREGORY L. FROST

 Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King

CAROLYN W. COLVIN,

ACTING COMMISSIONER

OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 

Defendant.

ORDER

 This matter is before the Court for consideration of the United States Magistrate Judge’s

May 30, 2013 Report and Recommendation. (ECF No. 17.) The Magistrate Judge

recommended that the Court grant Plaintiff’s motion for an award of attorney’s fees (ECF No.

15) consistent with the parties’ stipulation (ECF No. 16). 

The Report and Recommendation specifically advised the parties that the failure to object

to the Report and Recommendation within fourteen days of the Report results in “waiver of the

right to de novo review by the District Judge and of the right to appeal the decision of the

District Court adopting the Report and Recommendation.” (ECF No. 17, at PAGEID # 638.) 

The time period for filing objections to the Report and Recommendation has expired, and no

party has objected to the Report and Recommendation. 

This Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation. Noting that no objections

have been filed and that the time for filing such objections has expired, the Court ADOPTS the

1

Case: 2:12-cv-00764-GLF-NMK Doc #: 18 Filed: 06/20/13 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
Report and Recommendation. (ECF No. 17.) Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s

motion for an award of attorney’s fees (ECF No. 15) and AWARDS attorney’s fees in the

amount of $2,730.05 and costs in the amount of $369.95, for a total of $3,100.00.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 /s/ Gregory L. Frost 

GREGORY L. FROST

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

Case: 2:12-cv-00764-GLF-NMK Doc #: 18 Filed: 06/20/13 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
# C_2016200EN.01001501.xml

| 6.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/15

---

Order of the President of the Court of 22 February 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco — Spain) — Confederación Sindical ELA, Juan Manuel Martínez Sánchez v Aquarbe S.A.U., Consorcio de Aguas de Busturialdea

(Case C-118/15) (1)

1

(2016/C 200/21)

Language of the case: Spanish

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 171, 26.5.2015.

1

---
# C_2016343EN.01001401.xml

| 19.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 343/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 343/14

---

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 July 2016 — Fapricela — Indústria de Trefilaria, SA v European Commission

(Case C-510/15 P) (1)

1

((Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European prestressing steel market - Burden of proof - Presumption of innocence - Fines - 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Unlimited jurisdiction - Determining the gravity of the infringement and the additional amount in respect of deterrence - Justification - Principles of proportionality and equal treatment))

(2016/C 343/21)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Fapricela — Indústria de Trefilaria, SA (represented by: T. Caiado Guerreiro and R. Rodrigues Lopes, Agents)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka and J. Szczodrowski, Agents, and by M. Marques Mendes and A. Dias Henriques, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings:

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Fapricela — Indústria de Trefilaria SA shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Fapricela — Indústria de Trefilaria SA shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 381, 16.11.2015.

1

---
No. 64342.

protests 59/29670, etc. (Buffalo).

#### Swift *&*Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of prepared or preserved pork similar in all material respects to that the subject of *C. J. Tower & Sons*v. *United States*(43 Cust. Ct. 36, C.D. 2100), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Case No. 13,933.

#### The THOMAS WATSON.

[Blatchf. Pr. Cas. 120.] 1

District Court, S. D. New York.

March, 1862.

Peize — Evidence to Establish — Time Given.

1. The libel charged that the vessel, while attempting to violate the blockade, was burned, and that part of her cargo was saved as prize, but no proof was giveD in support of the libel. The court allowed the libellants thirty days to produce evidence, failing which the libel to be dismissed.

2. Where the testimony of witnesses from the delinquent vessel is dispensed with, adequate proof must be supplied, aliunde, of the delictum charged, before a condemnation will be awarded.

In admiralty.

BETTS, District Judge.

In this case a parcel of merchandise of small value is li-belled as prize on the allegation that it was part of the cargo of the ship Thomas Watson, which, in attempting to violate the blockade of the insurgent states, was run on shore, set fire to, and burned, and that this portion of the cargo was taken from the said ship by the naval forces of the United States, and sent to this port in the United States ship Vandalia, for adjudication. It was here libelled by the United States for forfeiture, and arrested by the marshal, under process therein, as prize of war. The property is still held by the marshal on that arrest, and due return is made by him of the seizure, and of public notice, thereof. No claim oi intervention is made in court for the property, and no proofs are given supporting the charges of the libel. Although, in cases of absolute necessity, proceedings, in prize may be prosecuted to effect without the observance of the formalities required by the prize rules, and the attendance and testimony of witnesses from the delinquent ship may be dispensed with, yet adequate *1015.proof must be supplied, aliuude, of the de--lictum .charged, to enable the ¡court to sustain the accusation. Jecker v. Montgomery, 13 How. [54 U. S.] 198, and 18 How. [59 U. S.] 110. There is no legal proof that the lost vessel committed the offence alleged, or that this parcel of goods was part of her cargo. There is, therefore, no foundation laid for the exercise of prize jurisdiction over it.

The libellants will be allowed a reasonable time to furnish evidence of these facts, and, if they fail to produce such within thirty days from the entry of this order, the suit will be dismissed as not brought within the cognizance of the court. Order accordingly.
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
B ONNIE J. ANGLE,

Pe t i tione r-Appe lla

nt,
v. C OM M ISSIONER

OF INTER

NAL REVENUE, R e sponde nt-Appe lle e . No. 16-70939 Ta x C t. No. 29418-11
M EM O R ANDUM *

B ONNIE J. ANGLE,

Pe t i tione r-Appe lla

nt,
v. C OM M ISSIONER

OF INTER

NAL REVENUE, R e sponde nt-Appe lle e . No. 16-70941 Ta x C t. No. 435-12 L

Appe a l from

a De c ision of the Unite d Stat e s Tax C ourt 

# FIL ED OCT 25 2017 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.Subm itte d Oc tobe r 16, 2017 * * San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : HAW KINS an d W . FLETC HER , C i rc uit Judge s, a nd KR ONSTADT, *** Distric t Judge
. Pe titione r B onnie J. Angle a ppe a ls the U.S. Tax C ourt’ s de nia l of re a sona ble litiga tion c osts unde r 26 U.S.C
. § 7430. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 26 U.S.C . §§ 7430(f), 7482(a )(1), and we a ffirm
. Litiga tion c osts m

ust be de nie d if Angle fa ile d to e sta blish tha t he r ne t worth did not e xc e e d $2,000,000 a t the tim e he r a c tion wa s file d. 26 U.S.C . § 7430(c )(4)(A)(ii) (re fe re nc ing 28 U.S.C . § 2412(d)(2)(B )). Angle file d for re lie f a s an innoc e nt spouseon De c e m be r 23, 2011. Se e 26 U.S.C
. § 6015. The e vide nc e shows tha

t Angle ’ s ne t worth e xc e e de d $2,000,000 a t the tim e of filing. Ne t worth is c a lc ulate d a c c ording to ge ne ra lly a c c e p te d a c c ounting princ iple s, a

n d a sse ts a

re va lue d at the i r a c quisition c ost. Am. Pac . C onc re tePipe C o., Inc . v . N

LRB , 788 F.2d 586, 590-91 (9th C i r. 1986); Unite d State s v . 88.88 Ac re s of Land , 907 F.2d 106, 107 (9th C ir. 1990). At the tim e of filing, Angle ’ s a sse ts inc lude d $3,508,009.47 owe d to he r on loa ns she ha d m a de to two

* * The pa

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

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).

* * * The Honora

ble John A. Kronstadt, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia , sitting by de signa tion. 2c orporations. Only by va luing the se loa

n s at $838,140 did Angle ’ s a c c ounta nt c onc lude tha

t he r ne t worth did not exc e e d $2,000,000. Angle argue s tha

t the
re m a ining loa

n am o unt of $2,669,869.47 is worthle ss, but thee vide nc e doe s not support this. Angle

a lso a rgue s tha t the Tax C ourt wa s bound to a c c e pt the
c onc lusions of her a c c ounta nt, but the a c c ounta

nt ne ithe r a

udite d nor a

tte m pte d to
ve rify the doc um e n ts he re lie d upon in re a c hing the se c onc lusions. W e de c line to a ddre ss Angle ’ s argum e nt tha t she satisfie d the “ pre va iling pa rty ” re q uire m e nt be c a

use she ha s fa i le d to m e e t the ne t worth re quire m e nt. AFFIRM E D.

3
10 20 30 40 50 60 70

23 m

21 m

19 m

17 m

15 m

13 m

4 m

C L E A R C R E E K R I D G E

P E NNS YLVANIA CHANNE L

P R E S QUE IS LE BANK

P E NNS YLVANIA ONTAR IO

P E NNS YLVANIA R IDGE

Cumulative Distance, km

v.e. = 1100

e 7 - Longitudinal section along the crest line of Clear Creek Ridge. Color bands depict specific depth intervals and are the

for both sections, figure 7 and figure 8, to facilitate comparison. The 4-meter line is suggestive of lake water depth following the

ng Rise in lake level.
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 231/2006

of 9 February 2006         

setting export refunds in the processed fruit and vegetable sector other than those granted on added sugar (provisionally preserved cherries, peeled tomatoes, sugar-preserved cherries, prepared hazelnuts, certain orange juices)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/96 of 28 October 1996 on the common organisation of the markets in processed fruit and vegetable products (1), and in particular the third subparagraph of Article 16(3) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

1.   Export refund rates in the processed fruit and vegetable sector, periods for lodging and for issuing licence applications and the quantities permitted are stipulated in the Annex hereto.

2.   Licences for food aid purposes issued as indicated in Article 16 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1291/2000 (4) shall not be counted against the quantities indicated in the Annex hereto.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 24 February 2006.

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

Done at Brussels, 9 February 2006.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL            

Member of the Commission

----

(1)OJ L 297, 21.11.1996, p. 29. Regulation as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 386/2004 (OJ L 64, 2.3.2004, p. 25).

(2)OJ L 141, 24.6.1995, p. 28. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 498/2004 (OJ L 80, 18.3.2004, p. 20).

(3)OJ L 366, 24.12.1987, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2091/2005 (OJ L 343, 24.12.2005, p. 1).

(4)OJ L 152, 24.6.2000, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1741/2004 (OJ L 311, 8.10.2004, p. 17).

----

ANNEX

to the Commission Regulation of 9 February 2006 setting export refunds for the processed fruit and vegetable sector other than those granted on added sugar (provisionally preserved cherries, peeled tomatoes, sugar-preserved cherries, prepared hazelnuts, certain orange juices)

Period for lodging licence applications: 24 February to 23 June 2006.

Licence assignment period: February to June 2006.

----

(1)  The descriptions corresponding to the product codes are contained in Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3846/87 (OJ L 366, 24.12.1987, p. 1), as amended.

(2)  The meanings of the A series destination codes are given in Annex II to Regulation (EEC) No 3846/87, as amended.

The meanings of the numerical destination codes are given in Commission Regulation (EC) No 2081/2003 (OJ L 313, 28.11.2003, p. 11).

The other destinations are:

----
# Official Journal C 136A/3 Ju

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 136A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 483 June 2005 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 136A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 483 June 2005

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Information |
| | Commission |
| 2005/C 136A/1 | Common catalogue of varieties of vegetable species — Third supplement to the 23rd complete edition | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

I   Information

Commission

2005/C 136A/1

Common catalogue of varieties of vegetable species — Third supplement to the 23rd complete edition

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Notice approving application in part, dismissed in part.  Effective dates of exemption authority granted to Delta: May 21, 2010, through May 21, 2012.  Effective dates of exemption authority granted to SAM: May 21, 2010, through May 21, 2011.  Effective dates of statement of authorization granted to SAM: May 21, 2010--Indefinite (subject to code-share conditions).  Petitions due June 2, 2010.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh

Elizabeth M. Welch,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

May 14, 2021

t0505 

# Order

Clerk May 14, 2021

161838

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 161838

COA: 349349

Allegan CC: 16

- 019842

- FC

STEPHEN MICHAEL BIESZKA,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On May 5, 2021, the Court heard oral argument on the application for leave to

appeal the June 18, 2020 judgment of the Court of Appeals. On orde r of the Court, the

application is again considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the

questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Exhibit 15






August 10, 2000

Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549

Commissioners:

We are aware that our report dated August 10, 2000 on our
reviews of interim financial information of UniSource Energy
Corporation (the Company) and Tucson Electric Power Company
(TEP) as of and for the period ended June 30, 2000 and included
in the Company's and TEP's quarterly report on Form 10-Q for
the quarter then ended is incorporated by reference in the
Company's Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-43765,
333-43767, 333-43769, 333-53309, 333-53333 and 333-53337), on
Form S-3 (Nos. 333-31043 and 333-93769), and on Form S-4 (No.
333-60809) and in TEP's Amendment No. 3 to the Registration
Statement on Form S-4 (No. 333-65143).

Very truly yours,



PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
*

This decision is rendered by a quorum, due to the retirement of then-Chief Judge Hatchett on May 14,

1999. 28 U.S.C. § 46(d). 

Forrest Kelly CLAY, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

RIVERWOOD INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, Thomas H. Johnson, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 97-8592.

United States Court of Appeals,

Eleventh Circuit.

May 27, 1999.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. (No. 1:95-CV-3147-CAM),

Charles A. Moye, Jr., Judge.

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING.

Before DUBINA and CARNES, Circuit Judges*

.

PER CURIAM:

Upon consideration of the petition for rehearing, the prior opinion issued on October 14, 1998, and

published at 157 F.3d 1259, is modified, as follows:

We vacate the introductory paragraph and also Part III A. of our prior opinion in this case, found at

157 F.3d at 1259, 1261, 1263-68, and adopt in their place the concurring opinion of Judge Carnes, which is

found in 157 F.3d at 1269-71.

We also vacate Part IV of our prior opinion and substitute in its place this paragraph: As to the

insider trading issue involving Clay's stock appreciation rights, we do not decide whether those rights are

securities or otherwise trigger the "disclose or abstain" rule of insider trading, but instead affirm the district

court's judgment on the ground that Clay lacks standing to bring a claim under § 20A of the Securities and

Exchange Act. As to the securities fraud issue involving Riverwood's July 1995 press release, we affirm the

judgment of the district court because that release did not require any subsequent disclosure under § 10(b)

or Rule 10b-5.
2

AFFIRMED.