alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# L_2013020EN.01005201.xml

| 23.1.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 20/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.1.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 20/52

---

POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE DECISION EUCAP NESTOR/2/2013

of 11 January 2013

on the acceptance of third States’ contributions to the European Union Mission on Regional Maritime Capacity-Building in the Horn of Africa (EUCAP NESTOR)

(2013/42/CFSP)

THE POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular the third paragraph of Article 38 thereof,

Having regard to Council Decision 2012/389/CFSP of 16 July 2012 on the European Union Mission on Regional Maritime Capacity Building in the Horn of Africa (EUCAP NESTOR) (1), and in particular Article 10(3) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Pursuant to Article 10(3) of Decision 2012/389/CFSP, the Council authorised the Political and Security Committee (‘PSC’) to take relevant decisions on the acceptance of contributions to EUCAP NESTOR by third States. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to Article 10(3) of Decision 2012/389/CFSP, the Council authorised the Political and Security Committee (‘PSC’) to take relevant decisions on the acceptance of contributions to EUCAP NESTOR by third States.

| (2) | The Civilian Operations Commander recommended that the PSC accept the proposed contribution from Norway to EUCAP NESTOR and to consider it as significant. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The Civilian Operations Commander recommended that the PSC accept the proposed contribution from Norway to EUCAP NESTOR and to consider it as significant.

| (3) | Norway should be exempted from financial contributions to the budget of EUCAP NESTOR, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Norway should be exempted from financial contributions to the budget of EUCAP NESTOR,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Third States’ contributions

1.   The contribution from Norway to EUCAP NESTOR is accepted and is considered to be significant.

2.   Norway is exempted from financial contributions to the budget of EUCAP NESTOR.

Article 2

Entry into force

This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.

Done at Brussels, 11 January 2013.

For the Political and Security Committee

The Chairperson

O. SKOOG

---

(1)  
  OJ L 187, 17.7.2012, p. 40.

1

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-6746

CLARENCE DUKE REYNOLDS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

GEORGE P. DODSON,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge.

(CA-94-452-R)

Submitted: December 14, 1995 Decided: January 4, 1996

Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, and WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Clarence Duke Reynolds, Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. Anderson, III,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988) petition. We have reviewed

the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court.

Reynolds v. Dodson, No. CA-94-452-R (W.D. Va. Mar. 27, 1995). We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Caroline D'AQUISTO, Plaintiff v. MISSION ST. JOSEPH'S HEALTH SYSTEM, Employer. Cambridge Integrated Services, Servicing Agent, Defendants.

No. 415PA05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 8, 2006.

Allan R. Tarleton, Asheville, for Health System.

Thomas F. Ramer, Vernon Sumwalt, Charlotte, for Caroline D'Aquisto.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant (Health System) on the 20th day of September 2006 for rehearing of the decision of this Court pursuant to Rule 31, N.C. Rules of Appellate Procedure, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th day of November 2006."
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 544 

To designate the United States courthouse at South Federal Place in Santa 

Fe, New Mexico, as the ‘‘Santiago E. Campos United States Courthouse’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 17, 2007 

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico (for himself, Mr. GONZALEZ, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. 

MCDERMOTT, Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas, and Mr. PASTOR) introduced 

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

and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To designate the United States courthouse at South Federal 

Place in Santa Fe, New Mexico, as the ‘‘Santiago E. 

Campos United States Courthouse’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

4 The United States courthouse at South Federal Place 

5 in Santa Fe, New Mexico, shall be known and designated 

6 as the ‘‘Santiago E. Campos United States Courthouse’’. 

7 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

8 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 

9 paper, or other record of the United States to the United 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with BILLS
2 

•HR 544 IH

1 States courthouse referred to in section 1 shall be deemed 

2 to be a reference to the ‘‘Santiago E. Campos United 

3 States Courthouse’’. 

Æ 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with BILLS
STATE v. Lawrence SKIPPER.

No. 252P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 29, 2006.

Christopher W. Brooks, Assistant Attorney General, Kristy M. Newton, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 8th day of May 2006 by Defendant for Appointment of Counsel:

"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference this the 29th day of June 2006."
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5795 

To require the Secretary of the Interior to notify units of local government 

when a Native American group files a petition to become a federally 

recognized Indian tribe and before the decision on the petition is made, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 15, 2008 

Mr. CAMPBELL of California introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To require the Secretary of the Interior to notify units of 

local government when a Native American group files 

a petition to become a federally recognized Indian tribe 

and before the decision on the petition is made, 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, 

3 SECTION 1. NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—When a petition requesting that 

5 a tribe be recognized, acknowledged, or reacknowledged 

6 through the Federal acknowledgment process as a feder7 ally recognized Indian tribe is filed with the Department 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
2 

•HR 5795 IH

1 of the Interior, the Secretary of the Interior, acting 

2 through the Bureau of Indian Affairs, shall notify in writ3 ing units of local government as follows: 

4 (1) Notification that a petition was filed and is 

5 still pending on the date of the enactment of this 

6 Act shall be made not later than 30 days after the 

7 date of the enactment of this Act. 

8 (2) Notification that a petition has been filed 

9 on or after the date of the enactment of this Act 

10 shall be made not later than 60 days after the peti11 tion is filed. 

12 (3) Notification of a decision on a petition shall 

13 be made not later than 90 days before the decision 

14 is announced. 

15 (b) UNITS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT.—A unit of local 

16 government required to be notified under subsection (a)— 

17 (1) is local city, parish, or county government 

18 located within a 25 mile radius of land— 

19 (A) over which the Native American group 

20 would be given jurisdiction by or pursuant to 

21 the petition; 

22 (B) that would be taken into trust for the 

23 benefit of the Native American group by or pur24 suant to the petition; and 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
3 

•HR 5795 IH

1 (C) ownership of which would be trans2 ferred to the Native American group by or pur3 suant to the petition; and 

4 (2) does not include any Indian tribe, school, or 

5 private persons or entities. 

6 SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON TRUST LAND. 

7 The Secretary of the Interior may not take land into 

8 trust for the benefit of an Indian tribe or any member 

9 of an Indian tribe, unless an Act enacted after the date 

10 of the enactment of this Act specifically instructs the Sec11 retary to take such land into trust for that Indian tribe 

12 or a member of that Indian tribe. 

Æ 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
STATE v. Percy SMITH.

No. 610P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 14, 2006.

Kathleen U. Baldwin, Assistant Attorney General, C. Colon Willoughby, District Attorney, for State.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 27th day of November 2006 by Defendant to Strike Felony Sentencing:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference this the 14th day of December 2006."
NELSON v. NELSON.

No. 508A06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 1, 2006.

K. Edward Greene, Raleigh, Adrienne E. Allison, Richard B. Hager, Sanford, for Carrie Nelson.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 30th day of November 2006 by Plaintiff for Extension of Time to File Brief:

"Motion Allowed. Plaintiff (Estate of Melvin Nelson) shall have up to and including the 15th day of January, 2007 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court. By order of the Court in conference this the 1st day of December 2006."
STATE v. OSBORNE

No. COA06-191.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed March 20, 2007.

Certification Date April 9, 2007.

Appeal from Mecklenburg (03CRS220457).

Case Reported Without Published Opinion. Affirmed in part and remanded in part for corrections.
EXHIBIT 99.1





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Bernard Liautaud, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Business Objects S.A. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2002 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Business Objects S.A.





By:

/s/    BERNARD
LIAUTAUDBernard LiautaudChairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer





I, Clifton T. Weatherford, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Business Objects S.A. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2002 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Business Objects S.A.





By:

/s/    CLIFTON T.
WEATHERFORDClifton T. WeatherfordChief Financial Officer and Executive Vice President, Finance and Administration
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1262/2013Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1262/2013 of 28 November 2013 entering a name in the register of protected designations            of origin and protected geographical indications [Puruveden Muikku (PGI)]         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1262/2013                     

# of 28 November 2013

# entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Puruveden Muikku                        (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, Finland’s application to register the name ‘Puruveden Muikku’                              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                              ‘Puruveden Muikku’ should therefore be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

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

# Article 2U.K.

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, 28 November 2013.

*For the Commission, On behalf of the President*,                           

Dacian Cioloș                            

*Member of the Commission*                            

## ANNEXU.K.

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

### **Class 1.7.****Fresh fish, molluscs and crustaceans and products derived therefrom**U.K.

#### FINLANDU.K.

Puruveden Muikku (PGI)

1

OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.                           

2

OJ C 140, 18.5.2013, p. 17.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                     EXHIBIT 11

                STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS

                  APPALACHIAN BANCSHARES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARY
               COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME (LOSS) PER COMMON SHARE

         The following tabulation presents the calculation of basic and fully
diluted earnings per common share for the years ended December 31, 1997, 1996
and 1995.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


                                                1997                       1996                    1995
                                           --------------             --------------          --------------

BASIC:
<S>                                        <C>                        <C>                     <C>
Reported net income (loss) ..............  $    1,017,766             $      516,736          $     (246,712)
                                           ==============             ==============          ==============
Earnings (loss) on common shares ........  $    1,017,766             $      516,736          $     (246,712)
                                           ==============             ==============          ==============
Weighted average common shares
    outstanding - basic .................         577,495                    568,000                 568,000
                                           ==============             ==============          ==============
Earnings (loss) per common share from
    continuing operations - basic .......  $         1.76             $          .91          $         (.43)
                                           ==============             ==============          ==============
Net income (loss) .......................  $         1.76             $          .91          $         (.43)
                                           ==============             ==============          ==============

DILUTED:

Reported net income (loss) ..............  $    1,017,766             $      516,736          $     (246,712)
                                           ==============             ==============          ==============
Earnings (loss) on common shares ........  $    1,017,766             $      516,736          $     (246,712)
                                           ==============             ==============          ==============
Weighted average common shares
    outstanding - diluted ...............         581,103                    568,000                 568,000
                                           ==============             ==============          ==============
Earnings (loss) per common share from
    continuing operations - diluted .....  $         1.75             $          .91          $         (.43)
                                           ==============             ==============          ==============
Net income (loss) .......................  $         1.75             $          .91          $         (.43)
                                           ==============             ==============          ==============
</TABLE>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARSHALL E

. MIKELS,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

JAN ESTEP; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 16

- 15602

D.C. No. 3:12

- cv

- 00056

- EMC

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Edward M. Chen, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 26, 2017 **

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

Marshall E

. Mikels appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his

post

- judgment motion for relief from the district court’s order dismissing his action

alleging violations of the Truth in Lending Act ( “ TILA ” ) and other claims

. We

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We r eview for an abuse of discretion the

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

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

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

# FILED

OCT 4 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 16

- 15602

district court’s denial of a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion. Casey v.

Albertson’s Inc. , 362 F.3d 1254, 1257 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by construing Mike ls’s motion

to vacate as a Rule 60(b) motion and denying it because Mikels failed to file the

motion “within a reasonable time.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1); Ashford v. Steuart

,

657 F.2d 1053, 1055 (9th Cir. 1981) (setti ng forth factors to determine whether a

Rule 60(b) motion was filed within a “reas onable time”)

.

Appellees’ motion for judi cial notice (Docket Entry No. 50 ) is denied as

unnecessary

.

AFFIRMED.
STATE v. WITHERSPOON.

No. COA05-1467.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed July 5, 2006.

Certification Date July 25, 2006.

Appeal from Forsyth (04CRS8843, 04CRS51939).

Case without published opinion. No error.
# Commission Regulation (EU) No 550/2013Show full title

Commission Regulation (EU) No 550/2013 of 11 June 2013 establishing a prohibition of fishing for cod in the Kattegat area            by vessels flying the flag of Sweden         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Regulation (EU) No 550/2013                     

# of 11 June 2013

# establishing a prohibition of fishing for cod in the Kattegat area by vessels flying the flag of Sweden

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring                           compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy(1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Council Regulation (EU) No 39/2013 of 21 January 2013 fixing for 2013 the fishing opportunities available to EU vessels for                              certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks which are not subject to international negotiations or agreements(2), lays down quotas for 2013.

(2)According to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation                              by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for                              2013.

(3)It is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

## Article 1U.K.Quota exhaustion

The fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein                     for 2013 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.                  

## Article 2U.K.Prohibitions

Fishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in                     the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited                     to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.                  

## Article 3U.K.Entry into force

This Regulation shall enter into force on the 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, 11 June 2013.

*For the Commission, On behalf of the President*,                           

Lowri Evans                            

*Director-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries*                            

## ANNEXU.K.

1

OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.                           

2

OJ L 23, 25.1.2013, p. 1.
In the Matter of the Will of Mary M. YELVERTON, Deceased. appealed by Mansel Yelverton, Caveator.

No. 376P06-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 25, 2007.

Joan M. Mitchell, Raleigh, for Mansel Yelverton.

Phillip A. Baddour, Jr., Goldsboro, for Kelvin Artis.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Caveator (Mansel Yelverton) on the 8th day of September 2006 for Writ of Supersedeas of the judgment of the Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 25th day of January 2007."

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Caveator (Mansel Yelverton) on the 12th day of September 2006 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Wayne County, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court of that County:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 25th day of January 2007."

Justice HUDSON recused.