alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# L_2012080EN.01001501.xml

| 20.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 80/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 80/15

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 242/2012

of 19 March 2012

on the issue of import licences for applications lodged during the first seven days of March 2012 under the tariff quota opened by Regulation (EC) No 1385/2007 for poultrymeat

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1385/2007 of 26 November 2007 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 774/94 as regards opening and providing for the administration of certain Community tariff quotas for poultrymeat (3), and in particular Article 5(6) thereof,

Whereas:

The applications for import licences lodged during the first seven days of March 2012 for the subperiod from 1 April to 30 June 2012 relate, for some quotas, to quantities exceeding those available. The extent to which import licences may be issued should therefore be determined by establishing the allocation coefficient to be applied to the quantities requested,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The quantities for which import licence applications have been lodged for the subperiod from 1 April to 30 June 2012 under Regulation (EC) No 1385/2007 shall be multiplied by the allocation coefficients set out in the Annex hereto.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 20 March 2012.

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

Done at Brussels, 19 March 2012.

For the Commission, On behalf of the President,

José Manuel SILVA RODRÍGUEZ

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

---

(1)  
  OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 238, 1.9.2006, p. 13.

2

(3)  
  OJ L 309, 27.11.2007, p. 47.

3

---

ANNEX

| Group No | Order No | Allocation coefficient for import licence applications lodged for the subperiod from 1.4.2012-30.6.2012
  (%) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1 | 09.4410 | 0,320206 |
| 3 | 09.4412 | 0,362584 |
| 4 | 09.4420 | 0,365633 |
| 6 | 09.4422 | 0,369007 |

Group No

Order No

Allocation coefficient for import licence applications lodged for the subperiod from 1.4.2012-30.6.2012

(%)

1

09.4410

0,320206

3

09.4412

0,362584

4

09.4420

0,365633

6

09.4422

0,369007

---
# Official Journal L 426I/2020

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 426I |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 6317 December 2020 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 426I

English edition

Legislation

Volume 6317 December 2020

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/2129 of 17 December 2020 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus | 1 |
| | | DECISIONS |
| | * | Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2020/2130 of 17 December 2020 implementing Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Belarus | 14 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/2129 of 17 December 2020 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus

1

DECISIONS

*

Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2020/2130 of 17 December 2020 implementing Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Belarus

14

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

EN

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

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
# United States Court of Appeals **For the Eighth Circuit**

___________________________ No. 13-2067

___________________________ John E. Peet lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant
v. Associated Bank, N.A. Mendota Heights; Edina Realty, Inc.; Ken Meinke lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis

____________ Submitted: February 7, 2014 Filed: February 11, 2014 [Unpublished]

____________ Before BENTON, BOWMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM. After John Peet was evicted from his apartment in Red Wing, Minnesota, he brought this action claiming defendants had discriminated and retaliated against him in violation of the Fair Housing Act (FHA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 3604(a)-(b), 3617. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that Peet had previously litigatedhis claims of discrimination and retaliati on in the Minnesota eviction action. The district court 1 granted defendants’ motions, and this appeal followed. Upon careful de novo review, seeC.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. v. Lobrano , 695 F.3d 758, 763 (8th Cir. 2012) (standard of review), we agree with the district court that Peet’s complaint was subject to di smissal. His claims of discrimination and retaliation were litigated and de termined adversely to him instate court, and he may not relitigate these issues in federal court. See Ill. Farmers Ins. Co. v. Reed , 662 N.W.2d 529, 531 (Minn. 2003) (e lements of collateral est oppel under Minnesota law). Thus he would be unable to establish an FHA claim for discrimination or retaliation. See Gallagher v. Magner , 619 F.3d 823, 831 (8th Cir. 2010) (elements of FHA discrimination claim); Reg’l Econ. Cmty. Action Program v. City of Middletown , 294 F.3d 35, 53-54 (2d Cir. 2002) (elements of FHA retaliation claim). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

1 The Honorable Susan Richard Nelson, Un ited States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Jeanne J. Graham, United States Magistra te Judge for the District of Minnesota. -2-
90 Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation — Defense Spending by State, FY 2020

OKLAHOMA 

#25 #15 1.1% $1,664 #27 #14 #13

$6.6 B SPENT IN 3.5% OF STATE GDP OF TOTAL U.S. PER RESIDENT $3.4 B CONTRACT 60,802 NUMBER OF $3.2 B PERSONNEL 

STATE DEFENSE SPENDING SPENDING PERSONNEL SPENDING 

, DEFENSE CONTRACTS

By Type 

Construction: 3% Research and

Development: 2%

3% 

Service: 71%

Supplies and

Equipment: 2

By Service 

Army

11%

Navy/Marines

8%

Air Force

Other Defense

7%

DEFENSE PERSONNEL 

Allocations, By Type

Reserve: 7%

National

Guard: 14% Active Duty: 36

Civilian: 43%

Allocations, By Service 

Army

Navy/Marines

5%

Air Force

Other Defense

3%

Top Defense Contractors 

Boeing

Patriot Team

L3Harris Technologies

IAP Worldwide Services

Strategic Mission Systems

Arctic Slope Regional Corp.

Cymstar

Afognak Native Corp.

Leidos

Field Aviation Inc.

(M = millions, B = billions)

$1.2 B

$263.0 M

$115.9 M

$104.0 M

$66.2 M

$55.4 M

$51.9 M

$47.0 M

$45.7 M

$43.6 M

Contract Awards Performed (By Fiscal Year, billions)

$3.4 $3.4 $3.4 $3.2 $3.1

$2.2 $1.8 $1.5

FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20

$3.2 BILLION 60,802

TOTAL PAYROLL TOTAL PERSONNEL 

74%

%

43%

49%

Top Defense Personnel Locations

County

Oklahoma

Comanche

Tulsa

Jackson

Pittsburg

Garfield

Cleveland

Canadian

Wagoner

Muskogee

Active Civilian National

Duty

6,427

12,545

50

1,338

ND 

1,243

43

ND 

16

0

Guard

18,508 2,226

2,523 410

897 1,759

1,297 85

1,865 170

334 163

168 992

26 586

16 447

76 383

Reserve

2,156

463

341

67

13

108

85

396

468

48 

Total

29,317

15,941

3,047

2,787

ND 

1,848

1,288

ND 

947

507
Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation — Defense Spending by State, FY 2020 91

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

OKLAHOMA FISCAL YEAR 2018 FISCAL YEAR 2018

FISCAL YEAR 2020 

TOP DEFENSE PERSONNEL SPENDING LOCATIONS (M=millions)

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

Oklahoma

Tulsa

Comanche

Garfield

Jackson

Haskell

Payne

Pittsburg

Cleveland

Rogers

(M = millions, B = billions)

$2.2 B

$509.7 M

$209.7 M

$123.9 M

$83.7 M

$35.1 M

$26.4 M

$26.3 M

$25.8 M

$24.7 M

Oklahoma

Comanche

Jackson

Pittsburg

Tulsa

Garfield

Cleveland

Canadian

Wagoner

Muskogee

$1.9 B

$684.0 M

$163.2 M

$126.9 M

$114.2 M

$110.4 M

$33.4 M 

$19.8 M

$17.9 M

$11.3 M

Garfield

Payne Oklahoma

Cleveland Pittsburg

Rogers

Haskell

Garfield

Cleveland

Jackson

Jackson

Comanche

Comanche

Tulsa

Wagoner

Muskogee

Tulsa

Canadian

Oklahoma

Pittsburg
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">Valerie Wilson, Appellant,<br><br>against<br><br>Michael Wallace and Wallace Home Improvement, LLC, Respondents. </font></b></div><br><br><p>Valerie Wilson, appellant pro se.Michael Wallace and Wallace Home Improvement, LLC, respondents pro se.</p><p>Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Terrence C. O'Connor, J.), entered November 30, 2017. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the action.</p><p>ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, without costs, the action is reinstated and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for a new trial.</p><p>Plaintiff, a homeowner, commenced this small claims action to recover the sum of $1,500 for breach of a contract to install new flooring. At a nonjury trial, the Civil Court, after taking testimony from both sides, dismissed the action on the ground that the contract has an arbitration clause and that no arbitration had been held, even though neither party had raised that point. However, as plaintiff argues on appeal, the contract has an additional clause which states that "[i]n the state of New York, the residential consumer shall have the option of electing to resolve any dispute between the parties in a court of proper jurisdiction rather than submit to an arbitration." Consequently, the Civil Court erred when it dismissed the action based upon the arbitration clause.</p><p>Accordingly, the judgment is reversed, the action is reinstated and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for a new trial.</p><p>PESCE, P.J., ELLIOT and SIEGAL, JJ., concur.</p><br>ENTER:<br>Paul Kenny<br>Chief Clerk<br>Decision Date: December 20, 2019<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
STATE of North Carolina v. Nathan Norwood NORRIS, Jr.

No. 486A05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 3, 2005.

Christopher W. Brooks, Assistant Attorney General, L. Johnson Britt, III, District Attorney, for State.

Nora Henry Hargrove, for Nathan Norwood Norris, Jr.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by the Attorney General on the 1st day of September 2005 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:

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 3rd day of November 2005."

Upon consideration of the petition for discretionary review, filed by the Attorney General on the 1st day of September 2005 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 and the Appellate Rule 16(b) as to issues in addition to those presented as the basis for the dissenting opinion in the Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the petition for discretionary review as to additional issues is

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 3rd day of November 2005."

Accordingly, only those issues which are the basis of the dissenting opinion in the Court of Appeals shall be presented to this Court in briefs. The Plaintiff's new brief so limited in scope shall be filed with this Court not more that 30 days from the date of certification of this order.
TRAYFORD v. NC PSYCHOLOGY BOARD.

No. 649A05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 24, 2006.

Sondra C. Panico, Assistant Attorney General, for N.C. Psychology Board.

J. Heydt Philbeck, Raleigh, for David K. Trayford, M.S.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 23rd day of January 2006 by Plaintiff for extension of time to file brief:

"Motion Allowed. Plaintiff (David K. Trayford, M.D.) shall have up to and including the 13th day of February 2006 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court. By order of the Court in conference this the 24th day of January 2006."
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21
- 6515

ANTONIO JACOBS , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. WARDEN NELSON , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Orangeburg

. J. Michelle Childs , District Judge. ( 5:19

- cv - 03440

- JMC )

Submitted : September 14, 2021 Decided: September 20, 2021

Before THACKER and RICHARDSON , Circuit Judges , and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Antonio Jacobs, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Antonio Jacobs seeks to appe al the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Jacobs’ 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by de monstrating that reasonable jurists c ould find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis , 137 S. Ct. 759, 773

- 74 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner mu st demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler , 565 U.S. 134, 140

- 41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2 000))

. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Jacobs has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal content ions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l y c onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. J AI M E B EL TR AN - J I M ENEZ , D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 12- 10205 D. C . No . 4 : 1 0 - c r - 0 0 9 4 8 - C KJ ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

A r i z ona C i ndy K . J or ge ns on, D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d A ugus t14, 2013 ** B efo re: S C H R O E D E R , G R A B E R , an d P A E Z , C i rcu i tJu d g es. J a i m e B e l tr a n- J i m e ne z appe a l s f r om the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s j udgm e nta nd chal l enges hi s bench-tri al conv i ct i on and 3 5-m on th sent ence for r ee ntryaf t er d e p o rt a t i o n , i n v i o l a t i o n o f 8 U . S. C. § 1 3 2 6 . W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U . S. C. § 1 2 9 1 , a n d w e a f

f i rm. 

# FI LED AU G 19 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS12- 10205 2 B e l tr a n- J i m e ne z c ont e nds tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourte rr e d by de ny i ng hi s m ot i on t o d i sm i ss th e i n d i ctm en t . W e rev i ew d e n o v o th e d en i al o f a m o t i o n t o d i sm i ss a s e c tio n 1 3 2 6 in d ic tm e n t. Se e U ni te d State s v . Mur o-I

nc lan , 249 F . 3d 1180, 1182 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) . B e l tr a n- J i m e ne z a r gue s tha thi s s t a t e c ourtc onvi c t i on c a nnots upportthe depo rt at i on order und er l yi ng hi s c urre ntconv i ct i on because hi s c ou nsel prov i ded i neff ec t i ve as si st ance i n the st at e procee di ng . B ec ause B el tran-Ji m enez had coun se l i n the st at e procee di ng , he m ayno tno w col l at er al l y a tt ac k h i s s t at e c ou rt c o n v ic tio n . See U

ni ted Stat es v. G ut i errez- C ervant ez , 13 2 F . 3d 46 0, 46 2 (9th C i r. 1 9 9 7 ) . M o r e o v e r , P ad i l la v. Kentucky , 5 5 9 U .S . 3 5 6 ( 2 0 1 0 ) , is n o t r e tr o a c tiv e . See Cha i dez v . U

ni ted Stat es , 13 3 S . C t . 11 03 , 11 13 (201 3). A cc ordi ng l y, the di stri ct co u rtp ro p erl y d en i ed th e m o t i o n t o d i sm i ss. AF F I RME D.
STATE v. RIDLEY.

No. COA03-1543.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed May 2, 2006.

Certification Date May 22, 2006.

Appeal from Craven (03CRS2594, 03CRS51405, 03CRS51406, 03CRS51407, 03CRS51408, 03CRS51409).

Case without published opinion. New sentencing hearing.
STATE of North Carolina v. James Emanuel RAY.

No. 106P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 4, 2006.

James Emanuel Ray, Pro Se.

Kathleen U. Baldwin, Assistant Attorney General, Thomas J. Keith, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 1st day of March 2006 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 4th day of May 2006."
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906



EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER



PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)



In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2005 (the Report) of APOLLO INVESTMENT
CORPORATION (the Registrant), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, RICHARD L. PETEKA, the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that:



(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 Registrant.



|                        |  | 
|----------------------- |  | 
|                       
|/s/ Richard L. Peteka  
|Name: Richard L. Peteka
|Date: November 3, 2005
<PAGE>


EXHIBIT 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Marketing WorldWide, Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, James
Marvin, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my
knowledge that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.



                                                       /s/ James Marvin
                                                       -----------------------
                                                       James Marvin
                                                       Chief Financial Officer
                                                       Date: May 14, 2007

                                       25
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-12-00611- CV

In re Henry G onzales, Jr., Appellant

ORI GINAL P ROCEEDI NG F ROM TRAVIS CO UNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Relator Henr

y Gonzales filed a petition for writ of mandamus, seeking to compel the Honora ble Kar en Sag e to set aside her order removing court-a ppointed trial counsel as his attorney of record. After her removal of trial counsel, J udg e S ag e re cused herse lf from these proce eding s, and the Honora

ble Bob Perkins was a ssigne d to preside over the underly ing case

. We abate d this

ma n d a mu s p e ti ti o n to g iv e Ju d g e Pe r k in s th e o p p o r

tu n it y to r e v ie w G o n za le s ’ s u

n d e r ly in g c o mp la in

t. See In re Gonzales , No. 03-12-00611- CV, 2012 WL 5834881, at *1–2 (Tex. App.—Austin Nov. 16, 2012, orig . proce eding ).

J udg e P erkins has since provided this C o u rt wi t h an order , signe d on Dec ember 6, 2012, g ranting Gonzales’s motion to set aside J udg e Sag e’s order removing co u rt-appointed trial counsel. Since Gonzales has rec eived the relief reque sted in his mandamus petition, we dismiss the petition for writ of mandamus as moot. See In re Luna , 317 S.W .3d 484, 484 (Tex. App.—Amar illo 2010, orig . proce eding ).__________________________________________ Scott K. Field, Just ice Be fore Chief J ustice Jones, J ustices Pury ear and F ield Filed: January

17, 2013

2
MUNFORD v. NEUSE SR. HOUSING, INC.

No. COA04-1431

North Carolina Court of Appeals

Filed October 4, 2005

Certification Date October 24, 2005

Appeal from NC Industrial Commission (I.C. #228995, I.C. #264682).

Cases reported without published opinion. Remanded.