alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# L_2010125EN.01000801.xml

| 21.5.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 125/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.5.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 125/8

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 429/2010

of 20 May 2010

entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Pemento de Oímbra (PGI))

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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

Having regard to 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 (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) and in accordance with Article 17(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Spain’s application to register the name ‘Pemento de Oímbra’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) and in accordance with Article 17(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Spain’s application to register the name ‘Pemento de Oímbra’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

| (2) | As no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

As no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name 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 20th day following 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, 20 May 2010.

For the Commission

The President

José Manuel BARROSO

---

(1)  
  OJ L 93, 31.3.2006, p. 12.

1

(2)  
  OJ C 223, 16.9.2009, p. 26.

2

---

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

Pemento de Oímbra (PGI)

---
WILLIAM J. MCCUTCHEN

,
Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,
Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 14

- 3016

___ __________________________/

Opinion filed April 14, 2015.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Gulf County

. John L. Fishel, I I , Judge

.

William J. McCutchen, pro se

, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Samuel Steinberg, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS

, C. J., RAY

, and SWANSON

, J J

. , CONCUR.
Exhibit 23.1



            Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on
Form S-8 (No. 333-25915; 333-80125; 333-69716; and 333-108745) pertaining to the
First Aviation Services Inc. Stock Incentive Plan, as amended, and in the
Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-25909) pertaining to the First
Aviation Services Inc. Employee Stock Purchase Plan, of our report dated April
21, 2006, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of
First Aviation Services Inc., included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the
year ended January 31, 2006.

                                                    /s/ Ernst & Young LLP


Stamford, Connecticut
April 27, 2006
No. 12-7040.

#### Carrillo *v.*Crews, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
2016-1862.

#### Bedell v. Portage Cty. Court of Common Pleas.

In Mandamus. On respondent’s motion to dismiss. Motion granted. Cause dismissed.

O’Connor, C.J., and O’Donnell, Kennedy, French, O’Neill, Fischer, and DeWine, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1501 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 311

103d CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                S. 1501

                          [Report No. 103-190]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 To repeal certain provisions of law relating to trading with Indians.

_______________________________________________________________________

            November 18 (legislative day, November 2), 1993

                       Reported without amendment

                                                       Calendar No. 311
103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1501

                          [Report No. 103-190]

 To repeal certain provisions of law relating to trading with Indians.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

           September 29 (legislative day, September 27), 1993

Mr. McCain (for himself, Mr. Domenici, and Mr. Bingaman) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                             Indian Affairs

            November 18 (legislative day, November 2), 1993

               Reported by Mr. Inouye, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To repeal certain provisions of law relating to trading with Indians.

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

SECTION 1. REPEAL.

    Section 437 of title 18, United States Code, is repealed.
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM UNAUDITED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                             145
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      206
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                           6,762
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,540
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   2,950
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                          5,331
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,281
<OTHER-SE>                                     (8,328)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     2,950
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,279
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,409
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 187
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (226)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    116
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (110)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.03)


</TABLE>
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement Form 
S-8 No. 333-72651 pertaining to the CD Warehouse, Inc. Amended 1996 Stock Option
Plan, the Registration Statement Form S-3 No. 333-58451 for the registration of 
2,036,730 shares of common stock and the Registration Statement Form S-3 No. 
333-72755 for the registration of 316,430 shares of common stock, and the 
related Prospectuses of our report dated February 19, 1999, with respect to 
the consolidated financial statements of CD Warehouse, Inc. included in the 
Annual Report Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 1998.


                                        /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
March 15, 1999
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

LESLIE WYN BOWDEN,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

CHRISTINE O. GREGOIRE; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 10-35253

D.C. No. 3:08-cv-05516-FDB

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Washington

Franklin D. Burgess, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 24, 2011** 

Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

Leslie Wyn Bowden, a Washington state prisoner, appeals pro se from the

district court’s judgment dismissing his civil rights action for failure to exhaust

administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C.

§ 1997e(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the

FILED

JUN 08 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 10-35253

district court’s dismissal for failure to exhaust, Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108,

1117 (9th Cir. 2003), and we affirm. 

The district court properly dismissed Bowden’s action because Bowden

failed to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing suit. See 42 U.S.C.

§ 1997e(a) (“No action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions . . . until

such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.”); Woodford v. Ngo,

548 U.S. 81, 85, 93-95 (2006) (“proper exhaustion” is mandatory and requires

adherence to administrative procedural rules); see also Wyatt, 315 F.3d at 1120 (“A

prisoner’s concession to nonexhaustion is a valid ground for dismissal . . . .”).

We construe the dismissal of Bowden’s claims to be without prejudice. See

Wyatt, 315 F.3d at 1120 (dismissals for failure to exhaust administrative remedies

are without prejudice).

Bowden’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

We do not consider claims raised for the first time on appeal. See Janes v.

Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 279 F.3d 883, 887 (9th Cir. 2002) (“Issues raised for the first

time on appeal usually are not considered.”).

Bowden’s motions for acceptance of his supplemental reply brief are

granted, and we instruct the clerk to file the supplemental reply brief received on

October 5, 2010. Bowden’s motion filed on November 5, 2010 is construed as a
3 10-35253

citation of supplemental authorities. Bowden’s remaining pending motions are

denied.

AFFIRMED.
#### Aaron Elkin, Appellant, v Andrea Labis, Respondent.

[48 NYS3d 664]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ellen Gesmer, J.), entered April 23, 2015, which, among other things, denied plaintiff father’s motion to hold defendant mother in contempt, and granted so much of defendant’s cross motion as sought counsel fees to the extent of ordering plaintiff to pay to defendant’s attorneys the sum of $2,000; and order, same court and Justice, entered April 28, 2015, which, among other things, granted plaintiff’s motion for an order directing certain relief only to the extent of appointing, in an order entered April 29, 2015, Dr. Jo Hariton to conduct therapeutic visits between plaintiff and the parties’ child, and otherwise denied the motion; and order, same court and Justice, entered April 29, 2015, which, among other things, directed plaintiff to arrange six therapeutic visits between him and the child with Dr. Hariton, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff failed to establish any basis for the motion court to order defendant to bring the child to the courtroom (Domestic Relations Law § 70). Nor did plaintiff establish any change in circumstance warranting the reassessment or updating of the parenting plan *(Matter of Moore v Gonzalez,*134 AD3d 718, 719 [2d Dept 2015]). An evidentiary hearing was not required *(see e.g. Allen v Farrow,*215 AD2d 137, 140 [1st Dept 1995]).

The motion court properly declined to appoint Dr. Alexandra Stone to supervise therapeutic visitation between plaintiff and the child, since Dr. Stone previously had declined the appointment and had withdrawn from the process. Similarly, the court properly declined to appoint Dr. Joel Klass to supervise therapeutic visitation. Dr. Klass had served as plaintiff’s expert during the custody trial and therefore was not an appropriate choice as supervisor, which requires the trust of both parties. Moreover, given that Dr. Klass resides in Florida, his appointment would cause the parties to incur substantially greater expense. The court properly appointed Dr. Hariton, especially *478since plaintiff failed to submit, at the court’s request, any appropriate professionals to conduct therapeutic visitation and failed to establish that Dr. Hariton was otherwise unqualified.

The motion court properly denied plaintiff’s motion to hold defendant in contempt for her alleged failure to follow the court’s August 19, 2014 order concerning plaintiff’s access to the child’s medical information. Defendant confirmed with the child’s pediatrician that plaintiff had received all of the child’s medical records to date and that no additional records had been created since that time. Thus, plaintiff’s rights were not prejudiced by defendant’s actions (Judiciary Law § 753 [A]), nor was defendant’s conduct willful *(id.*§ 750 [A] [3]). The court properly awarded defendant’s attorneys $2,000 for defending against plaintiff’s unsuccessful motion.

We have considered plaintiff’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Andrias, Gische and Webber, JJ.
GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY Department of Environmental Quality
No. 12-612.

#### Epperson *v.*SouthBank.

Sup. Ct. Miss. Cer-tiorari denied.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 96 (Tuesday, May 19, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 27584]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-13315]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration
[Docket No. 97N-0451]


Draft Guidance for Industry: Guide to Minimize Microbial Food 
Safety Hazards for Fresh Fruits and Vegetables; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is correcting a notice 
that appeared in the Federal Register of April 13, 1998 (63 FR 18029). 
The document announced the availability of a proposed guide entitled 
``Guidance for Industry: Guide to Minimize Microbial Food Safety 
Hazards for Fresh Fruits and Vegetables.'' The document was published 
with some errors. This document corrects those errors.

DATES: Written comments on the proposed guide by June 29, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    Joyce J. Saltsman, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition 
(HFS-165), Food and Drug Administration, 200 C St. SW., Washington, DC 
20204, 202-205-5916, FAX 202-260-9653, e-mail: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#79130a18150d0a1418391b18171e180d1c571f1d18571e160f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a7cdd4c6cbd3d4cac6e7c5c6c9c0c6d3c289c1c3c689c0c8d1">[email protected]</span></a>, or
    Michelle A. Smith, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition 
(HFS-306), Food and Drug Administration, 200 C St. SW., Washington, DC 
20204, 202-205-2975, FAX 202-205-4422, e-mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a2cfd1cfcbd6ca93e2c0c3ccc5c3d6c78cc4c6c38cc5cdd4"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="ddb0aeb0b4a9b5ec9dbfbcb3babca9b8f3bbb9bcf3bab2ab">[email protected]</span></a>.

    In FR Doc. 98-9636, appearing on page 18029 in the Federal Register 
of Monday, April 13, 1998, the following corrections are made:
    1. On page 18029, in the third column, in the first complete 
paragraph, beginning in the second line from the bottom ``WWW (<a href="http://
www.fda.gov/dockets/dockets.htm">http://
www.fda.gov/dockets/dockets.htm</a>)'' is corrected to read ``WWW (<a href="http://
www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/default.htm">http://
www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/default.htm</a>)''.
    2. On page 18030, in the first column, in the last paragraph, 
beginning in the third line from the bottom ``WWW (<a href="http://www.fda.gov/
dockets/dockets.htm">http://www.fda.gov/
dockets/dockets.htm</a>)'' is corrected to read ``WWW (<a href="http://www.fda.gov/
ohrms/dockets/default.htm">http://www.fda.gov/
ohrms/dockets/default.htm</a>)''.

    Dated: May 8, 1998.
 William K. Hubbard,
 Associate Commissioner for Policy Coordination.
[FR Doc. 98-13315 Filed 5-18-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-F


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20
- 7012

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. ASHTON DURRELL FARLEY , Defendant

- Appellant

.

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

. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Judge. ( 1:08

- cr - 00128

- MR

- WCM

- 8 )

Submitted : December 18, 2020 Decided: December 23, 2020

Before WILKINSON, KING, and AGEE , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. Ashton Durrell Farley , Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant U nited S tates Attorney , OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Ashton Durrell Farley appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a sentence reduction under the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115

- 391, § 404, 132 Stat. 5194, 5222. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we
affirm for the reasons stated by the district court

. United States v. Farley , No. 1:08

- cr 00128

- MR

- WCM

- 8 (W.D.N.C. Jun e 24, 2020). We dispense with oral arg ument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
# L_2010203EN.01000501.xml

| 5.8.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 203/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.8.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 203/5

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 699/2010

of 4 August 2010

entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Fagiolo Cannellino di Atina (PDO))

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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

Having regard to 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 (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Italy’s application to register the name ‘Fagiolo Cannellino di Atina’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Italy’s application to register the name ‘Fagiolo Cannellino di Atina’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

| (2) | As no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

As no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name 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 20th day following 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, 4 August 2010.

For the Commission

The President

José Manuel BARROSO

---

(1)  
  OJ L 93, 31.3.2006, p. 12.

1

(2)  
  OJ C 300, 10.12.2009, p. 24.

2

---

ANNEX

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

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

ITALY

Fagiolo Cannellino di Atina (PDO)

---
No. 12-7987.

#### Watson *v.*Wright et al.

C. A. 2d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
Exhibit 21.1

SUBSIDIARIES OF BUCKHEAD COMMUNITY BANCORP, INC.



|                                                     |  |                       |  |                                               
|---------------------------------------------------- |  | --------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------
|Subsidiary                                           |  | State ofIncorporation |  | Names under which the Subsidiary does Business
|                                                     |  |                      
|1.    The Buckhead Community Bank                    |  | Georgia               |  | a.    The Buckhead Community Bank             
|                                                     |  |                      
|                                                     |  |                       |  | b.    The Alpharetta Community Bank           
|                                                     |  |                      
|                                                     |  |                       |  | c.    The Midtown Community Bank              
|                                                     |  |                      
|                                                     |  |                       |  | d.    The Sandy Springs Community Bank        
|                                                     |  |                      
|                                                     |  |                       |  | e.    The Cobb Community Bank                 
|                                                     |  |                      
|                                                     |  |                       |  | f.    The Forsyth Community Bank              
|                                                     |  |                      
|                                                     |  |                       |  | g.    The Hall Community Bank                 
|                                                     |  |                      
|2.     Buckhead Community Bancorp Statutory Trust I  |  | Connecticut           |  | N/A                                           
|                                                     |  |                      
|3.     Buckhead Community Bancorp Statutory Trust II |  | Delaware              |  | N/A
2017-0136.

#### State v. Poulton.

Muskingum App. No. CT2016-0023, 2017-Ohio-60.
No. 12-6920.

#### Robertson *v.*Cree, Inc.

C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.