alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 371/2013Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 371/2013 of 22 April 2013 establishing the standard import values for determining            the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 371/2013                     

# of 22 April 2013

# establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

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 Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application                           of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors(2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations,                              the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products                              and periods stipulated in Annex XVI, Part A thereto.

(2)The standard import value is calculated each working day, in accordance with Article 136(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU)                              No 543/2011, taking into account variable daily data. Therefore this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its                              publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

The standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to                     this Regulation.                  

# Article 2U.K.

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day 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, 22 April 2013.

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

Jerzy Plewa                            

*Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development*                            

## ANNEXU.K.Standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

1

OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.                           

2

OJ L 157, 15.6.2011, p. 1.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
INTERMEDIA CAPITAL PARTNERS IV, L.P.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           8,770
<SECURITIES>                                    88,755
<RECEIVABLES>                                   17,539
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (2,130)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                60,663
<PP&E>                                         230,055<F1>
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 996,699
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           64,456
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      73,816
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   996,699
<SALES>                                        106,417
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               106,417
<CGS>                                           22,881<F2>
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  122,631
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (1,216)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              37,742
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (48,488)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 18,483
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (27,729)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>PP&E IS SHOWN NET OF ACCUMULATED DEPRECIATION.
<F2>INCLUDES PROGRAM FEES AND OTHER DIRECT EXPENSES
</FN>


</TABLE>
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 320/2013Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 320/2013 of 8 April 2013 establishing the standard import values for determining            the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 320/2013                     

# of 8 April 2013

# establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

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 Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application                           of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors(2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations,                              the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products                              and periods stipulated in Annex XVI, Part A thereto.

(2)The standard import value is calculated each working day, in accordance with Article 136(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU)                              No 543/2011, taking into account variable daily data. Therefore this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its                              publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

The standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to                     this Regulation.                  

# Article 2U.K.

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day 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, 8 April 2013.

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

José Manuel Silva Rodríguez                            

*Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development*                            

## ANNEXU.K.Standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

1

OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.                           

2

OJ L 157, 15.6.2011, p. 1.
STATE v. GADDY.

No. COA06-516.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed February 20, 2007.

Certification Date March 12, 2007.

Appeal from Moore (05CRS4401, 04CRS54164, 04CRS54165, 04CRS54166, 04CRS54167).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
McKYER v. McKYER

No. COA06-1605.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed June 19, 2007

Certification Date July 9, 2007.

Appeal from Mecklenburg (00CVD9237 JVH).

Case reported without published opinion. Vacated in part and Dismissed in part.
Henry H. SHAVITZ, for himself and others similarly situated v. CITY OF HIGH POINT, a municipal corporation, Electronic Data Systems Corporation, a Corporation doing business in the State of North Carolina, Allen L. Pearson, II, Peek Traffic, Inc., a Corporation doing business in North Carolina, *772Phil Wylie, Sreekanth Nandagiri, Arnold Koonce, Mayor of the City of High Point, Albert A. Campbell, M. Christopher Whitley, Aaron Lightner, Ronald B. Wilkins, M.C. Rowe, William S. Bencini, Jr., David B. Wall, each members of the High Point City Council, Strib Boynton, City Manager of The City of High Point and The Guilford County Board of Education.

No. 263P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 3, 2005.

Burley B. Mitchell, Jr., Sean E. Andrussier, Raleigh, Gusti W. Frankel, Winston-Salem, for City of High Point.

Robert J. King, III, Jill R. Wilson, Elizabeth V. LaFollette, Greensboro, for Guilford County Board of Education.

Andrew L. Romanet, Jr., General Counsel, Gregory F. Schwitzgebel, III, Senior Assistant General Counsel, for NC League of Municipalities.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the conditional petition filed on the 31st day of May 2005 by Defendant (Guilford County Board of Education) 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:

"Dismissed as Moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 3rd day of November 2005."
STATE v. GLASCOE.

No. COA05-1145.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed May 16, 2006.

Certification Date June 5, 2006.

Case without published opinion. No error.
#### Fasaidakot V. Kevii, Respondent, v Michael Wayne Cenname et al., Appellants, and Bernard A. Brandon, Respondent.

[803 NYS2d 618]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Michael Wayne Cenname and Carol Ann Delawder appeal from an interlocutory judgment of the Supreme Court, Orange County (McGuirk, *J.),*entered July 2, 2004, which, upon a jury verdict, inter alia, finding that the defendant Michael Wayne Cenname was negligent and that his negligence was a substantial factor in causing the subject accident, and upon the denial of their motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 to set aside the verdict as inconsistent and as against the weight of the evi*1062dence, inter alia, is in favor of the plaintiff and against them on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the interlocutory judgment is reversed, on the law, that branch of the motion which was to set aside the jury verdict as inconsistent is granted, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Orange County, for a new trial on all issues, with costs to abide the event.

This action arose out of a motor vehicle accident which occurred when the defendant Bernard A. Brandon attempted to make a left turn into a Dunkin Donuts. The plaintiff was Brandon’s passenger. After coming to a stop in an eastbound lane prior to starting his turn, Brandon noticed a box truck which had stopped in a westbound lane. Brandon testified that the box truck obscured his view of oncoming traffic. Immediately upon clearing the front bumper of the box truck, Brandon collided with the appellants’ vehicle traveling westbound. After a liability trial, the jury returned a verdict finding Brandon negligent, but that his negligence was not a substantial factor causing the accident. Yet, it apportioned Brandon’s liability at 50%.

Where, as here, the record indicates substantial confusion among the jurors in reaching their verdict, a new trial should be granted *(see Clarke v Order of Sisters of St. Dominic,*273 AD2d 431, 432 [2000]; *Merenda v Consolidated Rail Corp.,*248 AD2d 684, 686 [1998]; *Cortes v Edoo,*228 AD2d 463, 465-466 [1996]; *see also Trotter v Johnson,*210 AD2d 946 [1994]). As the verdict was internally inconsistent, the trial court should have required the jury to reconsider its verdict, or alternatively, should have granted a new trial *(see Clarke v Order of Sisters of St. Dominic, supra; DePasquale v Morbark Indus.,*254 AD2d 450 [1998]; *Merenda v Consolidated Rail Corp., supra; Cortes v Edoo, supra).*However, the Supreme Court did neither. Thus, the matter must be remitted to the Supreme Court, Orange County, for a new trial on all issues.

The parties’ remaining contentions need not be reached in light of our determination. Schmidt, J.P., Santucci, Luciano and Spolzino, JJ., concur.
ARMSTRONG v. ARMSTRONG.

No. 136P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 13, 2007.

Daniel S. Bullard, Gibsonville, for Margaret Armstrong.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 11th day of April 2007 by Defendant for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference this the 13th day of April 2007."
Exhibit 4.3


 


Consent of Independent Registered
Public Accounting Firm


We consent to the
reference made to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” in Part B of the Prospectus
and to the use of our report dated July 13, 2016, in this Registration Statement (Form S-6 No. 333-211080) of Smart Trust 253,
comprising Smart Trust, CEFA Select BDC Trust, Series 7.


 


/s/ Grant
Thornton LLP


 


Chicago, Illinois


July 13, 2016
**Exhibit 13.1** 
**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 Annual Report on Form 20-F of Minco Gold Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Annual Report”), I hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
 

 

1.
The Annual 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 Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the registrant.
 
Date:  April 20, 2012
 
/s/ Ken Z. Cai
Ken Z. Cai, President
**Exhibit 11**

 

**PAULA FINANCIAL ANDSUBSIDIARIES**

**Computation of Basicand Diluted Earnings Per Share**

(In thousands, except per share data)

 
|                                                                          |   | **Three  Months Ended  June 30,** |   | **Six Months  Ended  June 30,** |   |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------|--------|
|                                                                          |   | **2003**                          |   | **2002**                        |   | **2003** |   | **2002** |   |
|                                                                          |   |                              |   |                            |   |   |   |   |   |
| Net income                                                                    |   | $                                 | 113    |                            | $      | 50 |   | $ | 409 |   | $ | 262 |   |
|                                                                          |   |                              |   |                            |   |   |   |   |   |
| Weighted average shares outstanding for  calculating basic earnings per share |   | 6,235,264                         |   | 6,091,756                       |   | 6,206,398 |   | 6,092,168 |   |
|                                                                          |   |                              |   |                            |   |   |   |   |   |
| Options                                                                       |   | 241,596                           |   | 26,721                          |   | 212,544 |   | 15,396 |   |
|                                                                          |   |                              |   |                            |   |   |   |   |   |
| Total shares for calculating diluted  earnings per share                      |   | 6,476,860                         |   | 6,118,477                       |   | 6,418,942 |   | 6,107,564 |   |
|                                                                          |   |                              |   |                            |   |   |   |   |   |
| Basic earnings per share                                                      |   | $                                 | 0.02   |                            | $      | 0.01 |   | $ | 0.07 |   | $ | 0.04 |   |
|                                                                          |   |                              |   |                            |   |   |   |   |   |
| Diluted earnings per share                                                    |   | $                                 | 0.02   |                            | $      | 0.01 |   | $ | 0.06 |   | $ | 0.04 |   |

 

----
STATE of North Carolina v. Lorenzo DUARTE.

No. 653P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 19, 2006.

Daniel P. O'Brien, Assistant Attorney General, Jeff Hunt, District Attorney, for State.

William D. Auman, for Duarte.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Attorney General on the 23rd day of November 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:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 19th day of December 2006."
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-6512

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. JERRY DAVIS, Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (6:03-cr-01092-HMH; 6:08-cv-70123-HMH)

Submitted: June 18, 2009 Decided: July 2, 2009

Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marcia G. Shein, LAW OFFICE OF MARCIA G. SHEIN, PC, Decatur, Georgia, for Appellant. Robert Frank Daley, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, Leesa Washington, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Jerry Davis seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2009) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district

court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000);

Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Davis 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 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Larry Spencer HILL v. George KENWORTH.

No. 435P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 18, 2006.

Larry Spencer Hill, Pro Se.

George Kenworth, Pro Se.

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

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the application filed by Petitioner on the 18th day of August 2006 in this matter for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, McDowell County:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 18th day of August 2006."
STATE of North Carolina v. Regermaine Shernard ROSS.

No. 414P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 5, 2006.

Don Willey, for Ross.

Lisa Dawson, Assistant Attorney General, Thomas J. Keith, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 9th day of August 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 5th day of October 2006."
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          39,924
<SECURITIES>                                     1,005
<RECEIVABLES>                                      133
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                43,288
<PP&E>                                          29,002
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,096
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  69,145
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           14,256
<BONDS>                                         11,953
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     91,595
<COMMON>                                         6,785
<OTHER-SE>                                     (55,444)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    69,145
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,830
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    9,165
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                15,812
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             481,157
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (22,804)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (22,804)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (22,804)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.23)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.23)


</TABLE>