alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1200/2013Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1200/2013 of 25 November 2013 entering a name in the register of protected designations            of origin and protected geographical indications [Cozza di Scardovari (PDO)]         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1200/2013                     

# of 25 November 2013

# entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Cozza di Scardovari                        (PDO)]                     

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, Italy’s application to register the name ‘Cozza di Scardovari’                              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                              ‘Cozza di Scardovari’ 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, 25 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.

#### ITALYU.K.

Cozza di Scardovari (PDO)

1

OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.                           

2

OJ C 170, 15.6.2013, p. 51.
In the Matter of C.S. & C.A.S. appealed by Respondent, Stanley S.

No. 367P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina, Nineteen-B District.

March 8, 2007.

Terry F. Rose, Smithfield, for Stanley S.

Christopher G. Daniel, for Guardian ad Litem.

David A. Perez, for Randolph County DSS.

Scott Dunn, Asheboro, for Mother, Monica Durham.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 11th day of July 2006 by Respondent (Stanley S.) 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 8th day of March 2007."
STATE of North Carolina v. Christopher M. RAGLAND.

No. 246P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 25, 2007.

Matthew D. Wunsche, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Christopher M. Ragland.

W. Wallace Finlator, Assistant Attorney General, Peter S. Gilchrist, III, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by Defendant on the 9th day of May 2006 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30 (substantial constitutional question), the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the notice of appeal is

"Dismissed ex mero motu by order of the Court in conference, this the 25th day of January 2007."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 9th 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 25th day of January 2007."
WALKER v. TIPPETT

No. COA04-1359

North Carolina Court of Appeals

Filed July 19, 2005

Certification Date August 8, 2005

Appeal from Anson (04CVS243).

Case without published opinion. Affirmed.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michael McCoy, Appellant.

(Appeal No. 1.)

[801 NYS2d 175]

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Kenneth R. Fisher, J.), rendered October 31, 2002. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of driving in the wrong direction on a roadway designated and signposted for one-way traffic.

*1276It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: In appeal No. 1, defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of driving in the wrong direction on a roadway designated and signposted for one-way traffic (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1127 [a]) and, in appeal No. 2, he appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of, inter alia, murder in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.25 [1]). We reject the contention of defendant with respect to both appeals that he was deprived of effective assistance of counsel because defense counsel pursued *“a*single erroneous legal theory” on a motion to suppress evidence. To the extent that the contention of defendant survives his pleas of guilty (see *People v Burke,*256 AD2d 1244 [1998], *lv denied*93 NY2d 851 [1999]), we conclude that his contention lacks merit (see *generally People v Ford,*86 NY2d 397, 404 [1995]). Defendant has failed to establish that different suppression motion theories, if advanced, would have been successful (see *People v Peterson,*19 AD3d 1015 [2005]; *People v Phelps,*4 AD3d 863, 864 [2004], *lv denied*2 NY3d 804 [2004]; *People v Coleman,*305 AD2d 1031 [2003], *lv denied*100 NY2d 579 [2003]). “In the context of a guilty plea, a defendant has been afforded meaningful representation when he or she receives an advantageous plea and nothing in the record casts doubt on the apparent effectiveness of counsel” *(Ford,*86 NY2d at 404; *see generally People v Baldi,*54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]; *Phelps,*4 AD3d at 864). Finally, defendant’s bargained-for sentence in appeal No. 2 is not unduly harsh or severe. Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Hurlbutt, Kehoe and Pine, JJ.
FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MAY 28, 2010 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 0 9- 16 35 5 Non -Arg um en t Pane l

__ __ __ __ __ __ _ D.C. Dock etNo. 0 7- 02 26 5- CV-5 -SLB ISM AEIL MOHAMMED ABU SALIM, Pet it io ne r-Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us UNITED STAT ES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMM IGRATION SERVICES, Res po nd en ts -Ap pe ll ees .

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e North ernDis tri ctof Al ab am a

__ __ __ __ __ __ (Ma y 28 , 20 10 ) Befo re MAR CUS, MARTIN an d HILL, Ci rcu itJu dg es .PER CURI AM:

Thi s i s anap pe al by Ism aei l M oh amm edAbuSal im (Sal im ), a n at iv e an d ci ti zen of J or da n, an d alawf ul pe rm an en t re si de ntof t he Uni te d S ta te s, fr om th e gr an t o f su m

m ary jud gm en t b y

th e d is tri ctco urt i n fa vo r of th e Dep art m en t o f Hom el an d S ecu rity , Uni te d S ta te s C it iz en sh ip an d Immig rat io n S erv ic es (USCIS ), an d t he di sm is sa l b y

th e d is tri ctco urt o f Sal im ’s pet it io n fo r rev ie w of h is ap pl ic at io n fo r na tu ral iz at io n. Un de r a de no vo rev ie w, th e d is tri ctco urt fo un d th atSal im

ha d fa il edto m eethi s b ur de n o f sh owi ng th athe m etth e g oo d m or al ch arac te r requi rem en t fo r na tu ral iz at io n. 8 U.S.C. § 1 42 1( g) ; 8 U.S.C. § 14 27 (a)( 3) . By adm in is tra ti ve ord er, the USCIS i ni ti al ly den ie d S al im ’s app li cat io n fo r na tu ral iz at io n fo r la ckof g oo d m or al ch arac te r ba se d upo n h is co nv ic ti onfor se ll in g a lc oh ol to a m in or . For thi s o ffen se , Sal im rece iv eda su sp en de d s en te nc e an d t welv e m on th s’ un supe rv is edpro ba ti on . This co nv ic ti on oc cu rredwithi n fi ve y ears imm ed ia te ly prece di ng th e d at e o f fi li ng th e ap pl ic at io n fo r na tu ral iz at io n. Se e 8 U.S.C. § 14 27 (a)( 1) . The di stric t co urt ag reed , fin di ng th atSal im di d n otsubm itan y

ev id en ce o f ex te nu at in g c irc um st an ces forhi s u nl awfu l ac ts . It g ran te d USC IS’ m ot io n fo r 2su m

m ary jud gm en t. W e h av e car efu ll y

rev ie wedth e rec or d i n thi s ca se , th e b rie fs an d t he arg um en ts of c ou ns el . Fin di ng no erro r, th e jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ctco urt i s affi rm ed . AFFIR MED.

3
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


                     Exhibit 21.1 Subsidiaries of Registrant
                                  --------------------------

Name                                State of Incorporation    Names Under Which It Does Business
----                                ----------------------    ----------------------------------
<S>                                         <C>               <C>
1.   MCY Music World, Inc.                  Delaware          MCY Music World, Inc.

2.  MCY West, Inc.                          California        MCY West, Inc.

3. MCY America, Inc.                        New York          MCY America, Inc.

4.  MCY Events Inc.                         Delaware          MCY Events Inc.

5. MCY Latin, Inc.                          Delaware          MCY Latin, Inc.

6.  Fritsch & Friends Mediagroup GmbH       Germany           Fritsch & Friends Mediagroup GmbH

7. MCY Europe Gmbh i. Gr.                   Germany           MCY Europe Gmbh i. Gr.

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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 7
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   OTHER
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                            69,215
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                       1,397
<MORTGAGE>                                           0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                  73,301
<CASH>                                           3,979
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                                   3
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                             702
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  98,043
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                      0
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                              4,871
<POLICY-OTHER>                                  53,045
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                  9,159
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       3,437
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    98,043
<PREMIUMS>                                       4,542
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                              2,415
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                                 249
<OTHER-INCOME>                                     583
<BENEFITS>                                       3,337
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                        945
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                             2,037
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    914
<INCOME-TAX>                                       331
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                584
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       584
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     94.7
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     94.7
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                  47,035
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                              4,822
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                              (1,485)
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                 981
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                 6,189
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                 43,202
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0
        

</TABLE>
IN RE E.T.

No. COA06-901

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Filed May 1, 2007

Certification Date May 21, 2007

Appeal from Jackson (04J56, 04J57, 04J58, 04J59).

Case reported without published opinion. Dismissed.
**Exhibit 3(i)(b)**

 

**CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT OF CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION**

 

**OF**

 

**ALLIN COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION**

 

It is hereby certified that: 

 

1. The name of the corporation (hereinafter called the “corporation”) is ALLIN COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION. 

 

2. The certificate of incorporation of the corporation is hereby amended bystriking out Article FIRST thereof and by substituting in lieu of said Article FIRST the following new Article FIRST: 

 

“The name of the corporation is ALLIN CORPORATION.” 

 

3. The amendment of the certificate of incorporation herein certified has been duly adopted and written consent has been given in accordance with theprovisions of Sections 228 and 242 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware. 

 

Signed on January 8th, 1999
Maurice McKINNON v. Judge Ernest FULLWOOD, Benjamin David, District Attorney.

No. 680P05-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 13, 2006.

Maurice McKinnon, Pro Se.

Robert Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of NC.

Benjamin David, District Attorney, for David.

Ernest Fullwood, Superior Court Judge, for Fullwood.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Plaintiff on the 11th day of September 2006 in this matter for a writ of mandamus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, New Hanover County:

"Dismissed by order of the Court in Conference this the 13th day of September 2006."
STATE of North Carolina v. Barry McPHAUL and Duawn Wesley McMillian.

No. 275P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 14, 2006.

Marilyn Ozer, Chapel Hill, for Barry McPhaul.

Ann B. Petersen, Chapel Hill, for Duawn W. McMillian.

Jonathan Babb, Steven M. Arbogast, Special Deputy Attorney Generals, L. Johnson Britt, III, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by the Defendant (McPhaul) on the 20th day of May 2006 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30, and the motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question filed by the Attorney General, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the motion to dismiss the appeal is

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 14th day of December 2006."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 20th day of May 2006 by Defendant (McPhaul) 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 14th day of December 2006."
STATE of North Carolina v. Pierre Torez-Omar FARRAR.

No. 527PA06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 8, 2007.

David L. Elliott, Assistant Attorney General, R. Stuart Albright, District Attorney, for State of NC.

James R. Parish, Fayetteville, for Farrar.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Attorney General on the 4th day of October 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:

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th day of March 2007."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 4th day of October 2006 by Attorney General 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:

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th day of March 2007."

Therefore the case is docketed as of the date of this order's certification. Briefs of the respective parties shall be submitted to this Court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 15(g)(2).
# Council Regulation (Euratom) No 1314/2013 (repealed)Show full title

Council Regulation (Euratom) No 1314/2013 of 16 December 2013 on the Research and Training Programme of the European Atomic            Energy Community (2014-2018) complementing the Horizon 2020 Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (repealed)         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Council Regulation (Euratom) No 1314/2013                     

# of 16 December 2013

# on the Research and Training Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community (2014-2018) complementing the Horizon 2020                        Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (repealed)                     

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

Textual Amendments

F1Repealed by Council Regulation (Euratom) 2018/1563 of 15 October 2018 on the Research and Training Programme of the European Atomic Energy                                 Community (2019–2020) complementing the Horizon 2020 Framework Programme for Research and Innovation, and repealing Regulation                                 (Euratom) No 1314/2013.

F1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Rebekah Chantay REVELS, Plaintiff v. MISS NORTH CAROLINA PAGEANT ORGANIZATION, INC., Defendant Rebekah Chantay Revels, Plaintiff v. Miss America Organization, Miss North Carolina Pageant Organization, Inc., Alan Clouse, Billy Duncan, Charlene Hay, Doug Huff, Tom Roberts, David Clegg, Beverly Adams, and Candace Russell, Defendants.

No. 189P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

July 5, 2006.

Barry Nakell, for Rebekah Revels.

Debra L. Dewar, Andrew A. Vanore, III, Raleigh, Kenneth P. Carlson, Jr., Winston-Salem, Michael E. McDaniel, for Miss NC Pageant, et al.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 11th day of April 2006 by Plaintiff 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:

*289"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th day of July 2006."
**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

 Inconnection with the Annual Report of MarkWest Hydrocarbon, Inc. (the “Company”)on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2006, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, NancyK. Buese, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

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

(2) Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
| Date: March 7, 2007 |   |   | By:    | /s/NANCY K. BUESE                                                                                                    |
|---------------------|--------|--------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                |   |   |   | Nancy K. Buese                                                                                                       |
|                |   |   |   | Senior Vice President & Chief Financial Officer  (Principal Financial Officer and  Principal Accounting Officer) |

 

Thiscertification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 andis not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.This certification shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), orotherwise subject to liability under that section. This certification shall notbe deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the SecuritiesAct of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act except to the extent this Exhibit32.2 is expressly and specifically incorporated by reference in any suchfiling.

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished tothe Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 161 (Monday, August 22, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49007-49008]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-16703]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

[Docket No. OST-2005-22114]
RIN 2105-AD53


Time Zone Boundaries in the State of Indiana

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DOT.

ACTION: Correction notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice corrects the docket number identified in the 
August 17, 2005 publication of a notice to initiate proceedings to hold 
hearings in the appropriate locations in Indiana on the issue of the 
location of the boundary between the Eastern and Central Time Zones in 
Indiana.

DATE: Effective Date: August 22, 2005.

ADDRESSES: You may submit petitions [identified by the docket number in 
the heading at the beginning of this document] by any of the following 
methods:
    <bullet> Web site: http://dms.dot.gov. Follow the instructions for 
submitting petitions on the DOT electronic docket site.
    <bullet> Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    <bullet> Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of 
Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, 
Washington, DC 20590-001.
    <bullet> Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the 
Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joanne Petrie, Office of the General 
Counsel (C-50), 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590; e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3d545359545c535c495450587d595249135a524b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="88e1e6ece1e9e6e9fce1e5edc8ece7fca6efe7fe">[email protected]</span></a>.; (202) 366-9306.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice published on August 17, 2005 (70 
FR

[[Page 49008]]

48460) incorrectly identified the docket number for submitting 
petitions as 22119. The correct docket number for submitting petitions 
is 22114. Any petitions submitted to the incorrect docket number will 
appear under the correct docket number. This correction notice is to 
rectify that typographical mistake.

    Issued in Washington, DC, this 18th day of August, 2005,
Robert Ashby,
Deputy Assistant General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 05-16703 Filed 8-18-05; 1:27 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-62-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>