alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5058 

To prohibit the Secretary of the Interior from selling any oil and gas lease 

for any tract in the Lease Sale 193 Area of the Alaska Outer Continental 

Shelf Region until the Secretary determines whether to list the polar 

bear as a threatened species or an endangered species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 17, 2008 

Mr. MARKEY (for himself, Mr. INSLEE, Mr. HINCHEY, and Mr. LARSON of 

Connecticut) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To prohibit the Secretary of the Interior from selling any 

oil and gas lease for any tract in the Lease Sale 193 

Area of the Alaska Outer Continental Shelf Region until 

the Secretary determines whether to list the polar bear 

as a threatened species or an endangered species under 

the Endangered Species Act of 1973, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with BILLS
2 

•HR 5058 IH

1 SECTION 1. SCHEDULE FOR SALE OF OIL AND GAS LEASES 

2 FOR TRACTS WITHIN THE LEASE SALE 193 

3 AREA. 

4 (a) SCHEDULE.—The Secretary of the Interior may 

5 not sell any oil and gas lease for any tract located in the 

6 Lease Sale 193 Area of the Alaska Outer Continental 

7 Shelf Region before the earlier of— 

8 (1) the effective date of— 

9 (A) the listing of the polar bear as a 

10 threatened species or an endangered species 

11 under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 

12 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.); and 

13 (B) the final decision regarding the deter14 mination of critical habitat for such species 

15 under that Act; or 

16 (2) the date the Secretary publishes a deter17 mination that such listing is not warranted. 

18 (b) LEASE SALE 193 AREA DEFINED.—In this sec19 tion the term ‘‘Lease Sale 193 Area’’ means the area of20 fered for lease in the Final Notice of Sale (FNOS), OCS 

21 Oil and Gas Lease Sale 193, Chukchi Sea published in 

22 the Federal Register by the Minerals Management Service 

23 on January 2, 2008 (73 Fed Reg. 209). 

Æ 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with BILLS
**Exhibit 32.2**
**Certification of Chief Financial Officer**
          Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Dex Media WestLLC (the“*Company*”) hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that:
     (i) the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company forthe quarterly period ended June 30, 2004 (the “*Report*”) fully complies withthe requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
     (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.
        Dated: August 12, 2004/s/ Robert M. Neumeister, Jr.   Robert M. Neumeister, Jr.   Executive Vice President and
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5454 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to establish a presumption of service 

connection of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis for purposes of the laws administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 14, 2008 

Mr. BROWN of South Carolina (for himself and Mr. PRICE of North Carolina) 

introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 

Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to establish a presumption of service connection of amyotrophic lateral 

sclerosis for purposes of the laws administered by the 

Secretary of Veterans Affairs. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. PRESUMPTION OF SERVICE CONNECTION FOR 

4 AMYOTROPHIC LATERAL SCLEROSIS. 

5 Section 1112(a) is amended by inserting after para6 graph (5) the following new paragraph: 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
2 

•HR 5454 IH

1 ‘‘(6) amyotrophic lateral sclerosis developing a 

2 10 percent degree of disability or more at any 

3 time;’’. 

Æ 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
110 Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation — Defense Spending by State, FY 2021

VIRGINIA 

#1

$62.7 B SPENT IN 

#1

10.2% OF STATE

11.2%

OF TOTAL U.S. 

$7,259

PER RESIDENT 

#1

$42.6 B CONTRACT 

#2

251,230 NUMBER 

#1

$20.1 B PERSONNEL 

STATE GDP DEFENSE SPENDING SPENDING OF PERSONNEL SPENDING 

, DEFENSE CONTRACTS

By Type 

Research and Construction: 2% Development: 9% 

Supplies and

Equipment: 28%

Service: 61%

By Service 

Army

17%

Navy/Marines

39%

Air Force

15%

Other Defense

30%

Top Defense Contractors 

Huntington Ingalls

Leidos

Northrop Grumman

General Dynamics

CACI

Booz Allen Hamilton

Atlantic Diving Supply

SAIC

Lockheed Martin

Peraton Corp.

(M = millions, B = billions)

$4.1 B

$1.5 B

$1.3 B

$1.2 B

$1.2 B

$1.2 B

$987.1 M

$899.8 M

$696.9 M

$593.4 M

Contract Awards Performed (By Fiscal Year, billions)

$43.8 $42.6 $40.4

$34.3 $35.8 $33.0

FY14

$28.6 $29.3

FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21

DEFENSE PERSONNEL 

Allocations, By Type

Reserve: 7%

National Guard: 3%

Civilian: 40% Active Duty: 50%

Allocations, By Service 

Army

21%

Navy/Marines

59%

Air Force

9%

Other Defense

10%

$20.1 BILLION 251,230

TOTAL PAYROLL TOTAL PERSONNEL 

Top Defense Personnel Locations

County Active

Duty

Civilian National

Guard

Reserve Total

Norfolk City 49,686 17,140 303 1,078 68,207

Virginia Beach City 21,529 3,884 799 4,694 30,906

Fairfax 6,643 12,430 694 2,909 22,676

Arlington 2,712 16,264 73 116 19,165

Portsmouth City 3,775 13,657 161 17 17,610

Prince William 7,919 4,498 286 823 13,526

Prince George 7,456 3,494 0 462 11,412

Newport News City 6,441 3,746 75 1,081 11,343

York 8,045 678 1,055 952 10,730

Accomack 6,908 106 98 765 7,877
FISCAL YEAR 2018 FISCAL YEAR 2018

(M=millions)

(M=millions) (M=millions)

VIRGINIA 

FISCAL YEAR 2021 

TOP DEFENSE PERSONNEL SPENDING LOCATIONS 

TOP DEFENSE CONTRACT SPENDING LOCATIONS (M = millions, B = billions)

Fairfax

Newport News City

Arlington

Norfolk City

Virginia Beach City

Prince William

Alexandria City

Loudoun

Portsmouth City

Chesapeake City

(M = millions, B = billions)

$17.5 B

$4.3 B

$3.9 B 

$2.9 B

$2.2 B

$2.2 B

$1.7 B

$1.4 B

$767.6 M

$748.7 M

Norfolk City

Fairfax

Arlington

Virginia Beach City

Portsmouth City

Accomack

Prince William

Newport News City

King George

York

$4.9 B

$2.3 B

$2.3 B

$2.1 B

$1.4 B

$1.1 B

$881.9 M

$800.2 M

$683.0 M

$675.5 M

Loudoun

Fairfax

Arlington

Alexandria City

Prince William

Newport News City Norfolk City

Virginia Beach City

Portsmouth City

Chesapeake City

Fairfax

Arlington

Prince William

Accomack

King George

York

Norfolk City

Virginia Beach City

Newport News City

Portsmouth City

Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation — Defense Spending by State, FY 2021 111

AF Active AF Guard AF Reserve Army Active Army Guard Army Reserve MC Active Navy Active WHS
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4988 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Orgasol. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 16, 2008 

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania introduced the following bill; which was 

referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Orgasol. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. ORGASOL. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.39.08 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 Orgasol) is amended by striking the date in the effective 

7 period column and inserting ‘‘12/31/2011’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

10 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

11 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on PRODPC61 with BILLS
Air Force

Army

Navy/Marines

Other Defense

1%

3%

89%

7%

$0.8 $0.7 $0.8

$0.6

$0.5

$0.7 $0.8

$0.6

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Army

Navy/Marines

Air Force

Other Defense

34%

46%

15%

5%

Construcon: 2%

Research and

 Development: 7%

Service: 62%

Supplies and

 Equipment: 30%

Acve Duty: 25%

Civilian: 40%

Naonal Guard/

Reserve: 35%

Raytheon

Systems Engineering Associates

McLaughlin Research Corp.

SAIC

Mikel

Northrop Grumman

Nutmeg Companies

Tetra Tech

Rite‐Soluons

BAE Systems

$160.8 M

$53.7 M

$24.3 M

$22.1 M

$19.6 M

$18.0 M

$17.1 M

$16.3 M

$14.5 M

$14.0 M

Newport

Washington

Kent

Providence

Bristol

County

7,954

1,580

1,077

1,051

195

Total*

2,572

ND

34

110

ND

Acve Duty

   Military

4,350

268

63

186

ND

Civilian

 FISCAL YEAR 2017

RHODE ISLAND

   DEFENSE CONTRACTS

By Type

By Service

Top Defense Contractors (M=millions)

Contract Awards Performed (By Fiscal Year, Billions)

   DEFENSE PERSONNEL

Allocaons, By Type

Allocaons, By Service

$795.1 MILLION

TOTAL PAYROLL

12,189

TOTAL PERSONNEL

Top Defense Personnel Locaons

*Total also includes uniformed Naonal Guard and Reserve units.

Data sources: DoD’s Defense Manpower Data Center; DoD’s Procurement and Acquision Policy; DoD’s Military Installaons, Ranges and Training Areas; USASpending.gov; U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis;

U.S. Census Bureau; and Unitedstateszipcodes.org.

94 Oĸce of Economic Adjustment - Defense Spending by State, FY 2017
AF Guard Army Guard Navy Actve

RHODE ISLANDRHODE

#41 #17 0.4% $1,362 #42 #42 #35

$1.4 B

SPENT IN STATE

2.4% OF STATE GDP OF TOTAL U.S.

DEFENSE SPENDING

PER RESIDENT $0.6 B CONTRACT

SPENDING

12,189 NUMBER

OF PERSONNEL

$0.8 B PERSONNEL

SPENDING

TOP DEFENSE CONTRACT SPENDING LOCATIONS (M=millions)(M=millions) (M=millions)

Newport County

$549.3 M

Providence County

$32.2 M

Washington County

$18.7 M

Kent County

$14.5 M

Bristol County

$5.1 M

Newport

Providence

Washington

Kent

Bristol

TOP DEFENSE PERSONNEL SPENDING LOCATIONS (M=millions)(M=millions) (M=millions)

Newport County

$659.1 M

Washington County

$46.3 M

Providence County

$43.6 M

Kent County

$27.7 M

Bristol County

$2.7 M

Newport

Washington

Providence

Kent

Bristol

Oĸce of Economic Adjustment - Defense Spending by State, FY 2017 95
STATE v. Twanprece N. IVEY.

No. 458PA05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 3, 2006.

Julie Ramseur Lewis, Assistant Public Defender, for Twanprece N. Ivey.

Peter S. Gilchrist, III, District Attorney, for State.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 30th day of December 2005 by Attorney General for Extension of time to file brief:

"Motion Allowed. Attorney General shall have up to and including the 15th day of February 2006 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court. By order of the Court in conference this the 3rd day of January 2006."
Exhibit 32.1
                                CERTIFICATIONS OF
                      CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND TREASURER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                    SECTION 906 OF SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


         In connection with the annual report on Form 10-K of Capital Beverage
Corporation (the " Company") for the year ended December 31, 2006 (the
"Report"), I, Carmine N. Stella, hereby certify in my capacity as Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of
my knowledge and belief:

         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.



Dated:  March 30, 2007                         /s/Carmine N. Stella
                                                  -----------------------
                                            Name: Carmine N. Stella
                                            Title:Chief Executive Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-1610

SARAH SANDOVAL, 

Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

THE CENTER FOR INNOVATIVE GYN CARE, PC; NATALYA 

DANILYANTS, M.D., 

Defendants - Appellants. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. 

Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge. (8:17-cv-01599-PJM) 

Submitted: January 22, 2024 Decided: March 5, 2024

Before GREGORY and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Benjamin S. Vaughan, German A. Rodriguez, ARMSTRONG, DONOHUE, 

CEPPOS, VAUGHAN & RHOADES, CHARTERED, Rockville, Maryland, for Appellant 

Natalya Danilyants, M.D. J. Kristen Wiggins, Michael K. Wiggins, WHARTON, LEVIN, 

EHRMANTRAUT & KLEIN, P.A., Annapolis, Maryland, for Appellant The Center for 

Innovative GYN Care, P.C. George S. Tolley, III, DUGAN, BABIJ, TOLLEY & 

KOHLER, LLC, Timonium, Maryland, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1610 Doc: 40 Filed: 03/05/2024 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM: 

Following a jury trial, the district court entered judgment for Sarah Sandoval on her 

claim against The Center for Innovative Gyn Care, PC (CIGC) and Natalya Danilyants, 

M.D., for medical malpractice. After trial, the district court denied CIGC’s and Danilyants’ 

renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b). CIGC and 

Danilyants appeal and argue that the district court erred in denying this motion because 

Sandoval did not present sufficient evidence from which the jury could conclude that they

caused her injuries. We affirm. 

When, as here, the “the loser of a jury trial challenges the verdict under [Fed. R. 

Civ. P.] 50(b), the question is whether a jury, viewing the evidence in the light most 

favorable to the winning party, could have properly reached the conclusion reached by this 

jury.” Wiener v. AXA Equitable Life Ins. Co., 58 F.4th 774, 784 (4th Cir. 2023) 

(cleaned up). “Because [Sandoval] won at trial, all disputed facts must be construed in 

h[er] favor and [s]he must be given the benefit of all reasonable inferences.” Id. We review 

the district court’s denial of the Rule 50(b) motion challenging the sufficiency of the 

evidence de novo. Id. Having reviewed the facts adduced at trial in the light most favorable 

to Sandoval, we conclude that there was sufficient evidence for a jury to find Appellants 

caused her injuries. We reject as without merit their appellate arguments challenging this 

conclusion. 

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. Sandoval v. Ctr. for 

Innovative Gyn Care, PC, No. 8:17-cv-01599-PJM (D. Md. May 10, 2022). We dispense

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1610 Doc: 40 Filed: 03/05/2024 Pg: 2 of 3
3

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1610 Doc: 40 Filed: 03/05/2024 Pg: 3 of 3
# L_2017125EN.01003401.xml

| 18.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 125/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 125/34

---

DECISION (EU) 2017/846 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

of 16 March 2017

extending the term of office of the Committee of Inquiry to investigate alleged contraventions and maladministration in the application of Union law in relation to money laundering, tax avoidance and tax evasion

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT,

| — | having regard to the proposal by the Conference of Presidents, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the proposal by the Conference of Presidents,

| — | having regard to Article 226 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Article 226 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

| — | having regard to Decision 95/167/EC, Euratom, ECSC of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission of 19 April 1995 on the detailed provisions governing the exercise of the European Parliament's right of inquiry (1), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Decision 95/167/EC, Euratom, ECSC of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission of 19 April 1995 on the detailed provisions governing the exercise of the European Parliament's right of inquiry (1),

| — | having regard to Decision (EU) 2016/1021 of the European Parliament of 8 June 2016 on setting up a Committee of Inquiry to investigate alleged contraventions and maladministration in the application of Union law in relation to money laundering, tax avoidance and tax evasion, its powers, numerical strength and term of office (2), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Decision (EU) 2016/1021 of the European Parliament of 8 June 2016 on setting up a Committee of Inquiry to investigate alleged contraventions and maladministration in the application of Union law in relation to money laundering, tax avoidance and tax evasion, its powers, numerical strength and term of office (2),

| — | having regard to Rule 198(11) of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rule 198(11) of its Rules of Procedure,

| A. | whereas the Committee of Inquiry requested an extension of its term of office in order to enable it to implement its mandate fully and appropriately, taking into account the number of documents yet to be examined, the analyses commissioned, and the stakeholders to be heard; |
| --- | --- |

A.

whereas the Committee of Inquiry requested an extension of its term of office in order to enable it to implement its mandate fully and appropriately, taking into account the number of documents yet to be examined, the analyses commissioned, and the stakeholders to be heard;

1.

Decides to extend by three months the term of office of the Committee of Inquiry.

For the European Parliament

The President

A. TAJANI

---

(1)  
  OJ L 113, 19.5.1995, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 166, 24.6.2016, p. 10.

2

---
GOLDEN STATE BANCORP INC.



I.   GOLDEN STATE BANCORP INC.

     A.  Golden State Holdings Inc.

         1.   California Federal Bank, A Federal Savings Bank
                  a.  Auto One Acceptance Corporation
                      i.   Auto Depot, Inc.
                  b.  Cal Fed Credit Inc.
                  c.  Cal Fed Enterprises
                  d.  Cal Fed Holdings, Inc.
                      i.   FGB Realty Advisors, Inc.
                      ii.  First Prudential Corporation
                      iii. FNB Real Estate Corp.
                      iv.  Glenfed Properties, Inc.
                           a.  Oceanside Communities, Inc.
                      v.   Unified Mortgage Company
                  e.  Cal Fed Investments
                      i.   Cal Fed Investments of Nevada
                  f.  Cal Fed Mortgage Company
                  g.  Cal Fed Service Corporation
                  h.  Cal Fed Syndications
                  i.  California Communities, Inc.
                  j.  California Federal Preferred Capital Corporation
                  k.  Capital Conveyance Company
                  l.  CF Management Corp.
                  m.  CF Recovery Corp. Two
                  n.  Development Credit Corporation
                  o.  First Nationwide Mortgage Corporation
                      i.   FNC Insurance Agency, Inc.
                           a.  Cal Fed Insurance Agency, Inc
                      ii.  Master Mortgage Company
                      iii. Verdugo Trustee Service Corporation
                  p.  First Estate Corporation
                      i.   Glenfed Development Corp.
                           a.  Glenfed Development Ventures Corp.
                      ii.  Redlands Financial Services, Incorporated
                      iii. Crescent Bay Diversified, Inc.
                  q.  FNB Mortgage Company, LLC
                  r.  Franciscan Financial Corporation
                      i.   San Francisco Auxiliary Corporation
                  s.  Glenfed Service Corporation
                      i.   August Financial Corporation
                      ii.  Esandel, Inc.
                  t.  Sierra Network
                  u.  United California Financial Company
                  v.  United California Funding Corporation
                  w.  United Resources Capital Corporation
                      i.   United Energy Finance Corporation
                  x.  XCF Acceptance Corporation

     B.  Golden State Management Inc.

         1.   GSB Aviation, Inc.

         2.   GSB Aviation (Two) LLC

         3.   FGB Services, Inc.
IN RE M.B.

No. COA05-843

North Carolina Court of Appeals

Filed March 21, 2006

Certification Date April 10, 2006

Appeal from Mecklenburg (03J781).

Case reported without published opinion. Dismissed.
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


L\_2017023EN.01012201.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 28.1.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 23/122 |

---

Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1825 of 6 September 2016 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 901/2014 with regard to the administrative requirements for the approval and market surveillance of two- or three-wheel vehicles and quadricycles

(
[Official Journal of the European Union L 279 of 15 October 2016](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOL_2016_279_R_TOC)
)

On page 79, in the Annex, point 3(c) replacing point 5 of Appendix 1 to Annex V to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 901/2014 is replaced as follows:

| | | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| ‘(c) | in Appendix 1, point 5 is replaced by the following: | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | “5. | Example for a L3e-A3 motorcycle with additional information for the converted vehicle (CV), a L3e-A2 motorcycle, outside the clearly marked rectangle. In this case for the purpose of a temporary and reversible manufacturer's authorised modification to the first registered L3e-A3 motorcycle in order to register it nationally after its conversion as a reduced-power L3e-A2 configuration (e.g. for vehicle operators with A2 driving licence): | | | --- | | MOTORUDOLPH L3e-A3 e4\*168/2013\*2691 JRM00DBP008002211 84 dB(A) — 4 250 min– 1 max 352 kg | | | | --- | | L3e-A2 e4\*168/2013\*2692 83 dB(A) — 3 750 min– 1 35 kW” ’. | | |

---
# L_2018102EN.01009501.xml

| 23.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 102/95 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 102/95

---

Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 652/2012 of 13 July 2012 correcting Regulation (EC) No 543/2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards the marketing standards for poultrymeat

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 190 of 19 July 2012
  )

On page 3, in Annex I replacing Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 543/2008, the column in the first table with the Hungarian names of poultry carcases shall read as follows:

‘hu

Csirke, brojlercsirke

Kakas, tyúk, sütésre vagy főzésre szánt szárnyas

Kappan

Csibe

Fiatal kakas

(Fiatal) pulyka

Pulyka

Fiatal kacsa, (fiatal) pézsmakacsa, (fiatal) Mulard-kacsa

Kacsa, pézsmakacsa, Mulard-kacsa

(Fiatal) liba

Liba

(Fiatal) gyöngytyúk

Gyöngytyúk’

On page 5, in Annex I replacing Annex I Regulation (EC) No 543/2008, the column in the second table with the Hungarian names of poultry cuts shall read as follows:

‘hu

Fél

Negyed

Összefüggő combnegyedek

Mell

Comb

Csirkecomb a hát egy részével

Felsőcomb

Alsócomb

Szárny

Összefüggő szárnyak

Mellfilé

Mellfilé villacsonttal

Bőrös kacsamellfilé vagy bőrös libamellfilé (magret, maigret)

Kicsontozott pulykacomb’

---