alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Commission Regulation (EU) No 1344/2013Show full title

Commission Regulation (EU) No 1344/2013 of 12 December 2013 establishing a prohibition of fishing for mackerel in area IVa            by vessels flying the flag of the United Kingdom         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Regulation (EU) No 1344/2013                     

# of 12 December 2013

# establishing a prohibition of fishing for mackerel in area IVa by vessels flying the flag of the United Kingdom

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 40/2013 of 21 January 2013 fixing for 2013 the fishing opportunities available in EU waters and,                              to EU vessels, in certain non-EU waters for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks which are 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, 12 December 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. 54.
STATE v. MOFFITT.

No. COA05-545.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed April 4, 2006.

Certification Date April 24, 2006.

Appeal from Guilford (03CRS78964, 03CRS78967, 03CRS78968, 03CRS78969, 03CRS78970).

Case without published opinion. No error; remanded in part for resentencing.
STATE v. Ronnie SYLVIA.

No. 398P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 5, 2006.

Joan M. Cunningham, Assistant Attorney General, Edward W. Grannis, Jr., District Attorney, for State of NC.

*193The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 3rd day of August 2006 by Defendant for "Notice of Appeal":

"Motion Dismissed Ex Mero Motu by order of the Court in conference this the 5th day of October 2006."
#### Anthony Saggio, Jr., Respondent, v Frank Ladone et al., Appellants.

[799 NYS2d 586]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Baisley, Jr., J.), entered June 8, 2004, which granted *408the plaintiffs motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 to set aside a jury verdict in their favor on the issue of liability and for a new trial.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, the verdict is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for the entry of judgment in the defendants’ favor.

The Supreme Court should have denied the plaintiffs motion to set aside the jury verdict in favor of the defendants and against him on the issue of liability and for a new trial. The plaintiff, proceeding northbound through an intersection, collided with the defendants’ vehicle which was turning left from a southbound lane and crossing the northbound lanes. Left-turning traffic from the southbound lanes was controlled by a traffic signal. The plaintiff claimed that the traffic light for him was green “the whole way” and that therefore the traffic signal for southbound traffic turning left was not green. The defendant driver, on the other hand, claimed that he stopped at the intersection for a red light and he turned only after the light changed to a “green arrow.” The jury resolved the issue of credibility in the defendants’ favor. The trial court improperly determined that the defendant driver violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1141 which requires a driver making a left turn to yield the right of way to a vehicle approaching from the opposite direction. Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1141 was inapplicable here since the left-hand turn was controlled by a signal light. H. Miller, J.P., Goldstein, Crane and Skelos, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                      11,700,612
<SECURITIES>                                 2,527,900
<RECEIVABLES>                                  815,609
<ALLOWANCES>                                    50,000
<INVENTORY>                                    789,498
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            15,908,493
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              28,433,463
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       11,666,637
<BONDS>                                      1,252,068
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           275
<OTHER-SE>                                  15,514,483
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                28,433,463
<SALES>                                      2,073,458
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,073,458
<CGS>                                          951,513
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  951,513
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            12,975,935
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,358,850
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (12,745,440)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (12,745,440)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (3.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (3.08)


</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v John Gray, III, Appellant.

[801 NYS2d 455]

Appeal from a judgment of the Ontario County Court (Craig J. Doran, J.), rendered November 7, 2003. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted robbery in the second degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of attempted robbery in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 160.10 [1]). Contrary to the contention of defendant, he was not deprived of due process of law when County Court substituted assigned counsel against defendant’s wishes. The right of a defendant to counsel of his or her choice is not absolute *(see Wheat v United States,*486 US *1399153, 159 [1988], *reh denied*487 US 1243 [1988]). That right will yield where, as here, there is an “overriding competing public interest” *(Matter of Abrams [John Anonymous],*62 NY2d 183, 196 [1984]; *see People v Mackey,*175 AD2d 346, 348 [1991], *lv denied*78 NY2d 969 [1991]). Here, defendant’s first assigned counsel was being prosecuted for tampering with a witness in another case in the same county, and the court thus was faced with “the dilemma of having to choose between undesirable alternatives, either one of which would theoretically provide the defendant with a basis for appellate review” *(People v Tineo,*64 NY2d 531, 536 [1985]). We conclude that the court properly exercised its discretion in substituting assigned counsel under the circumstances of this case *(see generally People v Segrue,*274 AD2d 671, 672-673 [2000], *lv denied*95 NY2d 908 [2000]; *People v Gordon,*272 AD2d 133 [2000], *lv denied*95 NY2d 890 [2000]; *Mackey,*175 AD2d at 348). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the court failed to provide him with an explanation for the substitution *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]). The record establishes that, although the explanation for the substitution was not placed on the record in open court at the time of the substitution, the court stated that defendant would be provided with an explanation. Defendant did not thereafter object to the substitution on the ground that no explanation was provided, nor is there otherwise any indication in the record that no explanation was provided.

Defendant failed to preserve for our review his further contention that his plea of guilty was coerced *(see People v Santalucia,*19 AD3d 806 [2005]; *People v Thompson, 4*AD3d 785 [2004], *lv denied*2 NY3d 808 [2004]), and the narrow exception to the preservation requirement is not applicable here *(see People v Williams,*6 AD3d 1149 [2004], *lv denied*3 NY3d 650 [2004]; *see generally People v Lopez,*71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]). Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Scudder, Kehoe, Martoche and Hayes, JJ.
**EXHIBIT32.2**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Gregory A. Wells, Chief Financial Officer of NTSRealty Capital, Inc., the managing general partner of NTS Realty HoldingsLimited Partnership (the “Company”), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

1.      Thequarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended June 30, 2006(the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2.      The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated:    August7, 2006
| /s/   Gregory A. Wells                                                                                                 |   |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Chief Financial  Officer of   NTS Realty Capital, Inc., the Managing General Partner of  NTS Realty Holdings Limited Partnership |   |
|                                                                                                                             |   |
|                                                                                                                             |   |

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by theCompany and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staffupon request.

 

----
STATE of North Carolina v. Alexander Craig CROMARTIE.

No. 240P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 29, 2006.

Alexander C. Cromartie, Pro Se.

Daniel D. Addison, Special Deputy Attorney General Ben David, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 5th day of May 2006 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, 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 29th day of June 2006."
# L_2015175DE.01012801.xml

| 4.7.2015 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 175/128 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.7.2015

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 175/128

---

Berichtigung der Verordnung (EU) Nr. 294/2013 der Kommission vom 14. März 2013 zur Änderung und Berichtigung der Verordnung (EU) Nr. 142/2011 zur Durchführung der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1069/2009 des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates mit Hygienevorschriften für nicht für den menschlichen Verzehr bestimmte tierische Nebenprodukte sowie zur Durchführung der Richtlinie 97/78/EG des Rates hinsichtlich bestimmter gemäß der genannten Richtlinie von Veterinärkontrollen an der Grenze befreiter Proben und Waren

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 98 vom 6. April 2013
  )

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 98 vom 6. April 2013

Seite 6, Anhang, Nummer 6, Buchstabe b zur Änderung von Anhang X Kapitel II Abschnitt 10 einleitender Satzteil der Verordnung (EU) Nr. 142/2011:

anstatt:

„Material der Kategorie 3, bestehend aus Futtermitteln, die aus Mitgliedstaaten stammende Erzeugnisse tierischen Ursprungs enthalten, die nicht mehr zum menschlichen Verzehr bestimmt sind aus kommerziellen Gründen oder aufgrund von Herstellungs- oder Verpackungsmängeln oder Mängeln, von denen keine Gefahr für die Gesundheit von Mensch oder Tier ausgeht, gemäß Artikel 10 Buchstabe f der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1069/2009 darf ohne weitere Behandlung zur Verfütterung an Nutztiere außer Pelztieren in Verkehr gebracht werden, sofern das Material“

muss es heißen:

„Material der Kategorie 3, bestehend aus Lebensmitteln, die aus Mitgliedstaaten stammende Erzeugnisse tierischen Ursprungs enthalten, die nicht mehr zum menschlichen Verzehr bestimmt sind aus kommerziellen Gründen oder aufgrund von Herstellungs- oder Verpackungsmängeln oder Mängeln, von denen keine Gefahr für die Gesundheit von Mensch oder Tier ausgeht, gemäß Artikel 10 Buchstabe f der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1069/2009 darf ohne weitere Behandlung zur Verfütterung an Nutztiere außer Pelztieren in Verkehr gebracht werden, sofern das Material“.

---
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

May 24, 2011 

t0516 

Order 

 

May 24, 2011 

140847 

TERRIE TAYLOR, 

Petitioner-Appellee, 

v SC: 140847 

 COA: 287565 

MTT: 00-321766 

CITY OF TRAVERSE CITY, 

Respondent-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 By order of June 28, 2010, the application for leave to appeal was held in 

abeyance pending the decision in Klooster v City of Charlevoix (Docket No. 140423). 

On order of the Court, the case having been decided on March 10, 2011, 488 Mich 289 

(2011), the application is again considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
LINCOLN TERRACE ASSOCIATES, LTD. v. KELLY.

No. COA05-1563.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed October 3, 2006

Certification Date October 23, 2006.

Appeal from Gaston (05CVD963)

Case reported without published opinion. Reversed.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1248 

CA 12-00668 

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., CARNI, WHALEN, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.

 

 

WILLIAM F. WHITE, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS EXECUTOR 

OF THE ESTATE OF BONNIE L. WHITE, DECEASED, 

PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,

V ORDER

FRANK B. IACOVANGELO, AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE 

ESTATE OF THAD BOSS, M.D., DECEASED, ET AL., 

DEFENDANTS, 

AND TARA J. MAHAR, M.D., DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. 

 

DEMPSEY & DEMPSEY, BUFFALO (HELEN K. DEMPSEY OF COUNSEL), FOR

PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT. 

WARD GREENBERG HELLER & REIDY LLP, ROCHESTER (DANIEL P. PURCELL OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Steuben County

(Marianne Furfure, A.J.), entered June 30, 2011. The order granted

the motion of defendants for summary judgment dismissing all claims

against defendant Tara J. Mahar, M.D. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed without costs.

Entered: November 9, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
# Commission Implementing Decision of 7 November 2013 adopting a seventh updated list of sites of Community importance for the            Alpine biogeographical region (notified under document C(2013) 7355) (2013/738/EU) (repealed)         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Decision

# of 7 November 2013

# adopting a seventh updated list of sites of Community importance for the Alpine biogeographical region

# (notified under document C(2013) 7355)

# (2013/738/EU) (repealed)

F1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                        

Textual Amendments

F1Repealed by Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/71 of 3 December 2014 adopting an eighth update of the list of sites of Community                                 importance for the Alpine biogeographical region (notified under document C(2014) 9082).
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF VISION TWENTY-ONE, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                       6,052,423
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               26,744,722
<ALLOWANCES>                                 3,912,000
<INVENTORY>                                  3,308,813
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            35,360,794
<PP&E>                                      23,352,494
<DEPRECIATION>                               8,129,908
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             191,677,124
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       28,226,608
<BONDS>                                     81,692,287
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        15,067
<OTHER-SE>                                  73,706,546
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               191,677,124
<SALES>                                    101,892,251
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           223,417,114
<CGS>                                       87,933,408
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              207,667,460
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           5,379,099
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (9,086,285)
<INCOME-TAX>                                (2,450,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (6,636,285)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              1,318,512
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (7,954,797)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.55)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.55)


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM ACT 5 FDS
FOR 2ND QUARTER 10Q 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>                          MAY-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1998
<CASH>                                           5,125
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,839
<ALLOWANCES>                                        51
<INVENTORY>                                      4,106
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                12,165
<PP&E>                                          29,747
<DEPRECIATION>                                  10,023
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  83,554
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,890
<BONDS>                                         74,676
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             4
<OTHER-SE>                                      (1,351)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    83,554
<SALES>                                         24,500
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                24,500
<CGS>                                            3,698
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   20,045
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,983
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (3,226)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (3,226)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (3,226)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (1.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (1.13)
        

</TABLE>