alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# L_2013263EN.01001701.xml

| 5.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 263/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 263/17

---

COUNCIL DECISION

of 30 September 2013

appointing a Spanish member of the Committee of the Regions

(2013/484/EU)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal of the Spanish Government,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 22 December 2009 and on 18 January 2010, the Council adopted Decisions 2009/1014/EU (1) and 2010/29/EU (2) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2010 to 25 January 2015. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 22 December 2009 and on 18 January 2010, the Council adopted Decisions 2009/1014/EU (1) and 2010/29/EU (2) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2010 to 25 January 2015.

| (2) | A member’s seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Mr Antonio GRIÑÁN MARTÍNEZ, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

A member’s seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Mr Antonio GRIÑÁN MARTÍNEZ,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The following is hereby appointed as member to the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2015:

| — | Ms Susana DÍAZ PACHECO, Presidenta de la Junta de Andalucía. |
| --- | --- |

—

Ms Susana DÍAZ PACHECO, Presidenta de la Junta de Andalucía.

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.

Done at Brussels, 30 September 2013.

For the Council

The President

L. LINKEVIČIUS

---

(1)  
  OJ L 348, 29.12.2009, p. 22.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 12, 19.1.2010, p. 11.

2

---
STATE v. TAYLOR.

No. COA06-260.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed December 5, 2006.

Certification Date December 27, 2006.

Appeal from Richmond (04CRS4650).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
IN RE F.M.A.

No. COA06-935.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed February 6, 2007.

Certification Date February 26, 2007.

Appeal from the Surry (06J08).

Case Reported Without Published Opinion. Affirmed.
IN RE L.E.J.

No. COA05-1392.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed July 18, 2006.

Certification Date August 7, 2006.

Appeal from Wilkes (03J122).

Case without published opinion. Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997             DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997             SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                           8,423                       0
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,904                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                       495                       0
<INVENTORY>                                      6,364                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                26,954                       0
<PP&E>                                          14,089                       0
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,524                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  48,563                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           13,267                       0
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                        19,917                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                       (540)                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    48,563                       0
<SALES>                                         52,140                  44,158
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                52,140                  44,158
<CGS>                                           33,036                  28,313
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   44,644                  38,049
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 239                   1,329
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,257                   4,780
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,818                   1,774
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,439                   2,808
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,439                   2,808
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.87                    1.10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.86                    1.10
        

</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-50960 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus KENNETH W. HUDSON, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. A-95-CR-58-ALL

- - - - - - - - - - August 20, 1998 Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Kenneth W. Hudson, now Texas prisoner #732670, appeals from the denial of his motion to remove a federal detainer against him. This court must examine the basis of its jurisdiction on its own motion if necessary. Mosley v. Cozby , 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir. 1987). A timely notice of appeal is a prerequisite for the exercise of jurisdiction by this court. United States v. Carr , 979 F.2d 51, 55 (5th Cir. 1992). Hudson’s motion to have the detainer removed was a challenge to the manner in which his sentence is being executed. TheNo. 97-50960 -2- motion therefore was a petition for relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. United States v. Tubwell , 37 F.3d 175, 177 (5th Cir. 1994). Hudson had until September 26, 1997, to file a timely notice of appeal from the denial of his § 2241 petition. His October notice of appeal was untimely. We lack jurisdiction over Hudson’s appeal. APPEAL DISMISSED.
#### Jeff Amalfitano, Respondent, v S & J Deli, Doing Business as Ahmon Foods, Inc., et al., Appellants, et al., Defendant.

[800 NYS2d 506]

Order Supreme Court, Bronx County (Sallie Manzanet, J.), entered July 15, 2003, which denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Issues of fact exist as to whether, in the circumstances presented, defendant store’s personnel could have, without undue risk, mitigated the alleged assault committed on its premises by calling the police after plaintiff was attacked *(see D'Amico v Christie,*71 NY2d 76, 85 [1987]), and whether the store was so dominated by the individual defendants as to make it their mere alter ego and warrant the piercing of its corporate veil *(see Fern, Inc. v Adjmi,*197 AD2d 444 [1993]). Concur—Friedman, J.P., Marlow, Nardelli, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.
STATE v. VANN

No. COA06-584

Court of Appeal of North Carolina

Filed January 2, 2007

Certification Date January 22, 2007

Appeal from Columbus (04CRS53546).

Case Reported Without Published Opinion. No error.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED August 20, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-40134 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JORGE AGUILAR-SOLIS, also known as Mario Ortiz Aguilar, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. B-02-CR-476-1

-------------------- Before JONES, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Jorge Aguilar-Solis appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Aguilar-Solis contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are unconstitutional. He argues that the prior conviction that resulted in his increased sentence is an element of a separate offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should haveNo. 03-40134 -2- been alleged in his indictment. Aguilar-Solis maintains that he pleaded guilty to an indictment which charged only simple reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues that his sentence exceeds the maximum term of imprisonment and supervised release which may be imposed for that offense.
In Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. Aguilar-Solis acknowledges that his arguments are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres , but asserts that the decision has been cast into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). He seeks to preserve his arguments for further review. Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres
. See Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” Dabeit , 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED. The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 24.1


                               POWER OF ATTORNEY


     KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that each of the undersigned directors and
officers of Lason, Inc., a Delaware corporation, which is about to file with
the Securities and Exchange Commission, Washington, D.C., under the provisions
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, its Annual Report on Form
10-K for the year ended December 31, 1997 (the "Annual Report"), hereby
nominates, constitutes and appoints Gary L. Monroe and William J. Rauwerdink,
or either of them, as his true and lawful attorney-in-fact, with full power to
act and with full power of substitution, for him and in his name, place and
stead, to sign the Annual Report and any and all amendments thereto, and to
file the Annual Report and each amendment so signed, with all exhibits thereto,
with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the undersigned has executed this Power of
Attorney this 30th day of March, 1998.


/s/ Robert A. Yanover                   /s/ Fariborz Ghadar
----------------------------------      ----------------------------------------
Robert A. Yanover                       Fariborz Ghadar
Chairman of the Board and Director      Director


/s/ Gary L. Monroe                      /s/ Donald M. Gleklen
----------------------------------      ----------------------------------------
Gary L. Monroe                          Donald M. Gleklen
Chief Executive Officer, President      Director
(principal executive officer), and
Director

/s/ William J. Rauwerdink               /s/ Joseph P. Nolan
----------------------------------      ----------------------------------------
William J. Rauwerdink                   Joseph P. Nolan
Executive Vice President and            Director
Chief Financial Officer

/s/ Allen J. Nesbitt                    /s/ Bruce V. Rauner
----------------------------------      ----------------------------------------
Allen J. Nesbitt                        Bruce V. Rauner
Director                                Director
BRUNING & FEDERLE MFG. CO. v. Ricky D. MILLS and Associated Metal Works, Inc.

No. 609P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 1, 2005.

Douglas G. Eisele, Statesville, for Bruning & Federle Mfg. Co.

William P. Pope, Statesville, for Ricky D. Mills.

Robert B. Cordle, Charlotte, for Associate Metal Works, Inc.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 31st day of October 2005 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:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 1st day of December 2005."
Teresa Smith GILREATH v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES.

No. 310A06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 15, 2006.

Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, ___ N.C.App. ___, 629 S.E.2d 293 (2006), reversing an order entered on 3 June 2005 by Judge W. Russell Duke, Jr. in Superior Court, Granville County. Heard in the Supreme Court 22 November 2006.

Schiller & Schiller, PLLC, by David G. Schiller, Raleigh, for plaintiff-appellee.

Roy Cooper, Attorney General, by Angel E. Gray, Assistant Attorney General, for defendant-appellant.

*538PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.
BRISTOW DEVELOPMENT CO., INC. v. CRAVER ESTATES, INC.

No. COA06-893.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed February 6, 2007.

Certification Date February 26, 2007.

Appeal from the Davidson (06CVS62).

Case Reported Without Published Opinion. Dismissed.
#### CGU Insurance Company, Appellant, v John T. Nothnagle, Inc., Doing Business as Nothnagle Realtors, Respondent.

(Appeal No. 1.)

[801 NYS2d 175]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Thomas A. Stander, J), entered July 6, 2004. The order granted defendant’s motion in part and dismissed the action for noncompliance with a previous discovery order.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs for reasons stated at Supreme Court. Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Hurlbutt, Pine and Hayes, JJ.
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1108/2013Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1108/2013 of 5 November 2013 entering a name in the register of protected designations            of origin and protected geographical indications [Stromberger Pflaume (PDO)]         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1108/2013                     

# of 5 November 2013

# entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Stromberger Pflaume                        (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)Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 entered into force on 3 January                              2013. It repealed and replaced 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(2).

(2)Pursuant to Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Germany’s application to register the name ‘Stromberger Pflaume’                              was published in the *Official Journal of the European Union* (3).

(3)As no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, the name                              ‘Stromberger Pflaume’ 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, 5 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 1.6.****Fruit, vegetables and cereals, fresh or processed**U.K.

#### GERMANYU.K.

Stromberger Pflaume (PDO)

1

OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.                           

2

OJ L 93, 31.3.2006, p. 12.                           

3

OJ C 367, 27.11.2012, p. 8.
**EXHIBIT 32**

 

CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Young Broadcasting Inc. (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2005 as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), the undersigned herebycertify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

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

 

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

 

November 8,2005

 
|   | /s/  Vincent J. Young    |
|--------|--------------------------|
|   | Vincent  J. Young        |
|   | Chief  Executive Officer |
|   |                     |
|   |                     |
|   | /s/  James A. Morgan     |
|   | James  A. Morgan         |
|   | Chief  Financial Officer |

 

1

----
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 by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l unani m ous l yc 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 ar 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 AD AN MAGA NA - GA R Z A, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 10- 71057 A ge nc yN o. A 075- 112- 168 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

an O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d Jul y12, 2011 ** B efo re: S C H R O E D E R , A L A R C Ó N , an dL E A V Y , C i rcu i tJu d g es. A dan M a gana - G ar z a , ana t i ve and c i t i z e n of M e xi c o, pe t i t i ons f

orr e vi e w of the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ (“ B IA ”) order di sm i ss i ng hi s app ea l fr om an im m ig r a tio n ju d g e ’s d e c is io n d e n y in g h is m o tio n to r e o p e n r e m o v a l p r o c e e d in g s . O urj ur i s di c t i on i s gove rne d by8 U . S . C . § 1252. W e r e vi e w de novo c l a i m s of due 

# FI LED JU L 22 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS10- 71057 2 p r o c e s s v io la tio n s . Moh am m ed v. G on zales , 4 0 0 F .3 d7 8 5 , 7 9 1 - 9 2 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . W e d e n yin p art an dd is m is s in p art th e p e titio n f o rr e v ie w . M a gana - G ar z a ’ s due pr oc e s s c l a i m f a i l s be c aus e he di d noti de nt i f yany e rr ori n the a ge nc y ’ s de ni a l of hi s m ot i on t o r e ope n. Se e La ta v . I NS , 204 F . 3d 1 2 4 1 , 1 2 4 6 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) ( r e qu ir in g e rr o ran dp r e ju d ic e f o rap e titio n e rto p r e v a il o n adu e p r o c e s s c la im ) . W e l a c k j ur i s di c t i on t o r e vi e w the B I A ’ s de c i s i on nott o i nvoke i t s s ua s p o n te au th o r ityto r e o p e n p r o c e e d in g s u n d e r8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 ( a ) . Se e Me j i aH erna ndezv. H

older , 6 3 3 F .3 d8 1 8 , 8 2 4 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 1 1 ) . P E T IT IO N F O R R E V IE W D E N IE D i n p art; D IS M IS S E D i n p art.
Exhibit 32.1

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


         In connection with the accompanying Annual Report of Internet Infinity,
Inc.  (the  "Company")  on Form  10-KSB for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2005
(the "Report"), I, George Morris, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby
certify that to my knowledge:

         (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. ss.78o(d)); and

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


Dated:  November 8, 2005
                                                      /s/ George Morris
                                                     ---------------------------
                                                     George Morris
                                                     Chief Financial Officer



         The above  certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of
the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.  ss.1350)  and is not being filed as
part of the Form 10-KSB or as a separate disclosure document.