alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 173/2013Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 173/2013 of 26 February 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 173/2013                     

# of 26 February 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, 26 February 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.
#### In the Matter of Osdila Santiago, Appellant, v Ismail Ibrahim, Respondent.

[799 NYS2d 902]

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (DePhillips, J.), dated April 22, 2004, which denied her petition to modify an order of visitation of the same court dated December 3, 2002. Assigned counsel has submitted a brief in accordance with *Anders v California*(386 US 738 [1967]), in which he moves to be relieved of the assignment to prosecute this appeal.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,

Ordered that the counsel’s application to withdraw as counsel is dismissed as academic.

The order appealed from was rendered academic by a subsequent order of the Family Court, Queens County (DePhillips, J), dated May 21, 2004. Florio, J.P., Krausman, Crane, Rivera and Fisher, JJ., concur.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A17A2032. REIS et al. v. OOIDA RISK RETENTION GROUP, INC.

Plaintiffs Candice Reis and Melvin Williams (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed

a direct action against OOIDA Risk Retention Group, Inc. (“OOIDA”) for injuries

stemming from an automobile accident. OOIDA moved for summary judgment, in

part, based upon federal preemption. The trial court agreed and found that the

Liability Risk Retention Act, 15 U. S. C. § 3901, etseq., preempted Plaintiffs’ direct

action against OOIDA. Reis appeals from that ruling.

The Supreme Court has determined that preemption cases invoke its

constitutional question jurisdiction. See Babies Right Start, Inc. v. Ga. Dept. of Pub.

Health, 293 Ga. 553, 554 (1) (748 SE2d 404) (2013); Ward v. McFall, 277 Ga. 649,

651 (1) (593 SE2d 340) (2004). Accordingly, this appeal is hereby TRANSFERRED

to the Supreme Court for disposition.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

November 13, 2017

11/13/2017
STATE v. SIZEMORE.

No. COA06-823.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed February 6, 2007.

Certification Date February 26, 2007.

Appeal from the Henderson (05CRS2240, 05CRS2241, 05CRS2242, 05CRS2243, 05CRS2244, 05CRS2245, 05CRS2246, 05CRS2247, 05CRS2248, 05CRS2249, 05CRS2250, 05CRS2251).

Case Reported Without Published Opinion. No error.
<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 December 31, 2006 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: February 13, 2006


                                       26
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

October 22, 2012

h1015

Order 

October 22, 2012

145200 & (17)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 145200

COA: 306732

Wayne CC: 07-020805-FC

JOHN L. NORRIS,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 2, 2012 order of 

the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to 

meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). The motion to 

remand is DENIED.
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3091 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to exempt negative pressure 

wound therapy pumps and related supplies and accessories from the 

Medicare competitive acquisition program until the clinical comparability 

of such products can be validated. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 5, 2008 

Mr. COBURN (for himself, Mr. MARTINEZ, and Mr. CASEY) introduced the 

following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to exempt 

negative pressure wound therapy pumps and related supplies and accessories from the Medicare competitive acquisition program until the clinical comparability of such 

products can be validated. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Medicare Wound Ther5 apy Patient Protection Act of 2008’’. 


erowe on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•S 3091 IS

1 SEC. 2. EXEMPTION OF NEGATIVE PRESSURE WOUND 

2 THERAPY PUMPS AND RELATED SUPPLIES 

3 AND ACCESSORIES FROM THE MEDICARE 

4 COMPETITIVE ACQUISITION PROGRAM UNTIL 

5 THE CLINICAL COMPARABILITY OF SUCH 

6 PRODUCTS CAN BE VALIDATED. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1847(a)(2)(A) of the So8 cial Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w–3(a)(2)(A)) is amend9 ed by inserting before the period at the end the following: 

10 ‘‘and excluding negative pressure wound therapy pumps 

11 and related supplies and accessories until such time as the 

12 Secretary can validate, using a panel of wound care clin13 ical experts, the clinical comparability of all products in14 cluded in the category of such products’’. 

15 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

16 subsection (a) shall take effect on June 30, 2008. 

17 (c) SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING FISCAL RE18 SPONSIBILITY.—It is the sense of the Senate that the 

19 amendment made by subsection (a) should be deficit neu20 tral over the 5-year period beginning on October 1, 2008, 

21 through appropriate offsets. 

Æ 


erowe on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
IN RE N.D.H.

No. COA06-1686

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Filed May 1, 2007

Certification Date May 21, 2007

Appeal from Iredell (02JT258, 02JT259, 97JT126).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
STATE of North Carolina v. Ronnie HARRIS.

No. 436P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 5, 2006.

Ronnie Harris, Pro Se.

Kathleen U. Baldwin, Assistant Attorney General, Clark Everett, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 18th day of August 2006 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Pitt County, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court of that County:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th day of October 2006."
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1126/2013Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1126/2013 of 11 November 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 1126/2013                     

# of 11 November 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, 11 November 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.
# L_2015066DE.01002302.xml

| 11.3.2015 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 66/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.3.2015

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 66/23

---

Berichtigung der Verordnung (EU) Nr. 697/2013 des Rates vom 22. Juli 2013 zur Änderung der Verordnung (EU) Nr. 36/2012 des Rates über restriktive Maßnahmen angesichts der Lage in Syrien

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 198 vom 23. Juli 2013
  )

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 198 vom 23. Juli 2013

Auf Seite 28, Artikel 1 Nummer 1, neuer Artikel 2 Absatz 1:

anstatt:

„...mit oder ohne Ursprung in der Union unmittelbar oder mittelbar an syrische Personen, Organisationen oder Einrichtungen oder zur Verwendung in Syrien.“

muss es heißen:

„...mit oder ohne Ursprung in der Union unmittelbar oder mittelbar an Personen, Organisationen oder Einrichtungen in Syrien oder zur Verwendung in Syrien.“

Auf Seite 28, Artikel 1 Nummer 1, neuer Artikel 2 Absatz 2:

anstatt:

„... die in Absatz 1 genannt sind, an syrische Personen, Organisationen oder Einrichtungen oder zur Verwendung in Syrien.“

muss es heißen:

„... die in Absatz 1 genannt sind, an Personen, Organisationen oder Einrichtungen in Syrien oder zur Verwendung in Syrien.“

Auf Seite 29, Artikel 1 Nummer 5, neuer Artikel 3 Absatz 1 Buchstabe a:

anstatt:

| „a) | für syrische Personen, Organisationen oder Einrichtungen oder zur Verwendung in Syrien unmittelbar oder mittelbar technische Hilfe oder Vermittlungsdienste im Zusammenhang mit den ...“ |
| --- | --- |

„a)

für syrische Personen, Organisationen oder Einrichtungen oder zur Verwendung in Syrien unmittelbar oder mittelbar technische Hilfe oder Vermittlungsdienste im Zusammenhang mit den ...“

muss es heißen:

| „a) | für Personen, Organisationen oder Einrichtungen in Syrien oder zur Verwendung in Syrien unmittelbar oder mittelbar technische Hilfe oder Vermittlungsdienste im Zusammenhang mit den ...“ |
| --- | --- |

„a)

für Personen, Organisationen oder Einrichtungen in Syrien oder zur Verwendung in Syrien unmittelbar oder mittelbar technische Hilfe oder Vermittlungsdienste im Zusammenhang mit den ...“

.

---
# L_2012326EN.01000101.xml

| 24.11.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 326/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.11.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 326/1

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1096/2012

of 14 November 2012

entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Aischgründer Karpfen (PGI))

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Germany’s application to register the name ‘Aischgründer Karpfen’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Germany’s application to register the name ‘Aischgründer Karpfen’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

| (2) | As no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

As no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

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

Article 2

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, 14 November 2012.

For the Commission, On behalf of the President,

Dacian CIOLOȘ

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 93, 31.3.2006, p. 12.

1

(2)  
  OJ C 64, 3.3.2012, p. 16.

2

---

ANNEX

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

GERMANY

Aischgründer Karpfen (PGI)

---
IN RE D.D.D.

No. COA07-415.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed August 7, 2007.

Certification Date August 27, 2007.

Appeal from Johnston (06JT110, 06JT111).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
<PAGE>


                            SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

     CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18 OF THE
                               UNITED STATES CODE

     I, Stanley J. Talbi, the President of MetLife Life and Annuity Company of
Connecticut (the "Company"), certify that (i) the Company's Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 (the "Form 10-Q") fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

Date:    May 15, 2006

                                        /s/ Stanley J. Talbi
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Stanley J. Talbi
                                        President




     A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to MetLife Life and Annuity Company of Connecticut and will be
retained by MetLife Life and Annuity Company of Connecticut and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
1

The Honorable Henry Woods, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 98-4218

___________

Curtis Bledsoe, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

Hartford Life and Accident Insurance *

Company, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: November 26, 1999

 Filed: December 6, 1999

___________

Before BOWMAN, FAGG, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Curtis Bledsoe appeals from the District Court’s1

 order granting summary

judgment to Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company in this Employee

Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) action. After careful review of the

record and the parties’ submissions, we conclude that the District Court correctly

determined that Bledsoe’s suit is barred because he failed to exhaust his administrative

remedies. See Kinkead v. Southwestern Bell Corp. Sickness & Accident Disability
-2-

Benefit Plan, 111 F.3d 67, 68 (8th Cir. 1997) (“[B]enefit claimants must exhaust the

review procedures mandated by [ERISA] before bringing claims for wrongful denial

to court.”).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
STATE of North Carolina v. Billy Junior BRADLEY.

No. 559P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 14, 2006.

M. Gordon Widenhouse, Jr., Chapel Hill, for Billy Junior Bradley.

Amar Majmundar, Special Deputy Attorney General, Jeff Hunt, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 24th day of October 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 14th day of December 2006."
IN RE B.O.

No. COA06-1562.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed June 5, 2007.

Certification Date June 25, 2007.

Appeal from Buncombe (05J145).

Cases reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7158

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ANTONIO FRANKLIN CUNNINGHAM,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert D. Potter, Senior

District Judge. (CR-90-85-P)

Submitted: January 21, 1999 Decided: February 9, 1999

Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Antonio Franklin Cunningham, Appellant Pro Se. Robert James Conrad,

Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Antonio Franklin Cunningham appeals the district court’s order

denying his motion to modify his sentence. We have reviewed the

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

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. See United States v. Cunningham, No. CR-90-85-P (W.D.N.C.

June 29, 1998). We deny Appellant’s motion for appointment of

counsel and 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.

AFFIRMED