alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 898/2013Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 898/2013 of 9 September 2013 entering a name in the register of protected designations            of origin and protected geographical indications [Aceite de Navarra (PDO)]         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 898/2013                     

# of 9 September 2013

# entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Aceite de Navarra                        (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(1)Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 repealed and replaced Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection                              of geographical indications and designations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, Spain’s application to register the name ‘Aceite de Navarra’ 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                              ‘Aceite de Navarra’ 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, 9 September 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 1.5.****Oils and fats (butter, margarine, oils, etc.)**U.K.

#### SPAINU.K.

Aceite de Navarra (PDO)

1

OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.                           

2

OJ L 93, 31.3.2006, p. 12.                           

3

OJ C 322, 24.10.2012, p. 9.
EXHIBIT
      99.1











Contact:
            Robert
      E. Wheaton


President, CEO


Star Buffet, Inc.


(480) 425-0397





FOR
IMMEDIATE RELEASE:  Wednesday, April 29, 2009








STAR
BUFFET, INC. FILES FORM 10-K FOR FY 2009





SCOTTSDALE,
AZ – April 29, 2009 – Star Buffet, Inc. (NASDAQ: STRZ) today filed a Form 10-K
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for its fiscal year ending January
26, 2009.  Following are the highlights:





Star
Buffet, Inc. had revenues of $97.8 million and net income of $943,000, or $0.29
per share on a diluted basis, for the fifty-two weeks ended January 26,
2009.





About
Star Buffet





Star
Buffet is a multi-concept restaurant operator.  As of April 29, 2009,
Star Buffet, through five independently capitalized subsidiaries, operates 19
Barnhill’s Buffet restaurants, 11 franchised HomeTown Buffets, six JB’s
restaurants, four 4B’s restaurants, three K-BOB’S Steakhouses, three
BuddyFreddys restaurants, two Western Sizzlin restaurants, two Whistle Junction
restaurants,  two Holiday House restaurants, two JJ North’s Grand
Buffets, two Casa Bonita Mexican theme restaurants, one Pecos Diamond Steakhouse
and one Bar-H Steakhouse.
STATE v. LITTLE

No. COA06-1095.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed June 19, 2007

Certification Date July 9, 2007.

Appeal from Guilford (03CRS108522, 04CRS24457, 04CRS24458, 04CRS24459, 04CRS24460).

Case reported without published opinion. Remanded.
# Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 206/2013Show full title

Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 206/2013 of 11 March 2013 implementing Article 12(1) of Regulation (EU) No 359/2011            concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Iran         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 206/2013                     

# of 11 March 2013

# implementing Article 12(1) of Regulation (EU) No 359/2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons,                        entities and bodies in view of the situation in Iran                     

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

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

Having regard to Council Regulation (EU) No 359/2011 of 12 April 2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain                           persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Iran(1), and in particular Article 12(1) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)On 12 April 2011, the Council adopted Regulation (EU) No 359/2011.

(2)In view of the ongoing human rights abuses in Iran, additional persons and an additional entity should be included in the                              list of persons, entities and bodies subject to restrictive measures as set out in Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 359/2011,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

The persons and the entity listed in the Annex to this Regulation shall be added to the list set out in Annex I to Regulation                     (EU) No 359/2011.                  

# 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 March 2013.

*For the Council*                            

*The President*                            

C. Ashton                            

## ANNEXU.K.**List of the persons and the entity referred to in Article 1**

### **Persons**

### **Entities**

1

OJ L 100, 14.4.2011, p. 1.
ARMSTRONG v. ALBRIGHT.

No. 491P06-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 3, 2007.

Burton & Sue for Albright.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 28th day of February *7632007 by Plaintiff for "Petition for Rehearing":

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference this the 3rd day of May 2007."
STATE v. RAHMAN.

No. COA06-272.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed March 6, 2007.

Certification March 26, 2007.

Appeal from the Wake (05CRS16074, 05CRS16075, 05CRS16076, 05CRS16077).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
IN RE D.S.M.

No. COA06-1245

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Filed April 17, 2007

Certification Date May 7, 2007

Appeal from Wake (06JB163).

Cases reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Anthony L. Downs, Appellant.

[801 NYS2d 448]

Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Frank P Geraci, Jr., J.), rendered December 6, 2002. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, and criminally using drug paraphernalia in the second degree.

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

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him after a jury trial of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree (Penal Law § 220.09 [1]), criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree (§ 220.03), and criminally using drug paraphernalia in the second degree (§ 220.50 [2]). We reject defendant’s contention that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence *(see generally People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). The arresting police officers testified that they observed defendant walking away from the bathroom as they entered the building at issue pursuant to a search warrant, and they recovered 46 plastic baggies floating in the toilet from that bathroom. The baggies later were determined to be filled with crack cocaine. Thus, the officers’ testimony placed defendant in proximity to the baggies of cocaine in the toilet, and “[d]efendant’s proximity to the cocaine, which was in plain view, constitutes direct evidence of defendant’s possession of the cocaine found in the apartment” *(People v Wilson,*284 AD2d 958, 958 [2001], *lv denied*96 NY2d *1415943 [2001]; *see*Penal Law § 220.25 [2]; *see generally People v Gardner,*163 AD2d 892, 892-893 [1990]). In addition, police witnesses testified that defendant’s hands were wet when defendant emerged from the bathroom. The jury was entitled to discredit the testimony of defendant’s cousin, a codefendant, that defendant played no part in selling, preparing or possessing the drugs found at the scene, and “[g]reat deference [must be] accorded to the fact-finder’s opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony and observe demeanor” *(Bleakley,*69 NY2d at 495).

Finally, defendant’s sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present—Green, J.P., Hurlbutt, Scudder, Gorski and Lawton, JJ.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

MIDDLE DISTRICT 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

 Respondent 

 v. 

LAMARR SISTRUNK, 

 Petitioner 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 157 MM 2015 

 

 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 24th day of November, 2015, the Application for Leave to 

Exceed Word Count is DENIED. Petitioner is DIRECTED to file a compliant Petition for 

Allowance of Appeal within 30 days.
Exhibit 11.1 

 

STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS 

 

Basic earnings per share is computed by dividing our earnings attributable to common sharesby the weighted average number of common shares outstanding during the period. 

 

Diluted earnings per share is computed by dividing our earnings attributable to common shares by the weighted average number of common shares, common equivalent shares and common shares assumed converted from potentially dilutive securitiesoutstanding during the period. 

 

For purposes of computing diluted earnings pershare, common equivalent shares include the average number of common shares issuable upon the exercise of all employee stock options, if dilutive, less the common shares which could have been purchased at the average market price during the periodwith the assumed proceeds, including the “windfall” tax benefits, from the exercise of the options, awards and subscriptions.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           5,733
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   25,957
<ALLOWANCES>                                       629
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                36,937
<PP&E>                                         364,495
<DEPRECIATION>                                 102,858
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 396,538
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           92,063
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           300
<OTHER-SE>                                     250,617
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   396,538
<SALES>                                        147,469
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               147,469
<CGS>                                           71,019
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   71,019
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                87,770
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   450
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,349
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (14,565)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       174
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (14,739)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (14,739)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.67)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.67)


</TABLE>
STATE v. LEGRAND.

No. COA06-398.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed February 20, 2007.

Certification Date March 12, 2007.

Appeal from Guilford (04CRS66339, 04CRS66344, 04CRS24198).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
Dismissed and Opinion Filed November 4, 2015 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-00472-CV 

LESLEY TEMPLETON, Appellant 

V. 

BLAKE PATTERSON, Appellee 

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. CC-13-06506-E 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Bridges, Francis, and Myers 

Opinion by Justice Bridges 

Appellant’s brief in this case is overdue. By postcard dated September 02, 2015, we 

notified appellant the time for filing her brief had expired. We informed appellant to file both 

her brief and an extension motion within ten days that complies with Texas Rules of Appellate 

Procedure 10.1(a) and 10.5(b). Appellant was cautioned that failure to comply would result in 

dismissal of this appeal without further notice. To date, appellant has not filed her brief, 

requested an extension of time to file her brief, or otherwise corresponded with the Court 

regarding the status of this appeal. 

Furthermore, by postcards dated April 14, 2014 and July 29, 2015 we notified appellant 

that the $195 filing fee was due. On both occasions, we directed appellant to remit the filing fee 
 –2– 

within ten days and cautioned that failure to do so would result in dismissal of the appeal without 

further notice. To date, appellant has not paid the filing fee. 

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1); 42.3(b)(c). 

150472F.P05 

 

/David L. Bridges/ 

DAVID L. BRIDGES 

JUSTICE 
 –3– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

LESLEY TEMPLETON, Appellant 

No. 05-15-00472-CV V. 

BLAKE PATTERSON, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the County Court at Law 

No. 5, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. CC-13-06506-E. 

Opinion delivered by Justice Bridges. 

Justices Francis and Myers participating. 

 In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal. 

 We ORDER appellee BLAKE PATTERSON recover his costs, if any, of this appeal 

from appellant LESLEY TEMPLETON. 

Judgment entered November 4, 2015.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF BOCA RESORTS, INC. FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2000 AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          44,170
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   41,778
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      8,312
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                92,684
<PP&E>                                       1,062,642
<DEPRECIATION>                                  76,853
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,298,523
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          159,114
<BONDS>                                        340,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           406
<OTHER-SE>                                     501,788
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,298,523
<SALES>                                        421,547
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               430,256
<CGS>                                          213,486
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  213,486
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               146,795
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              56,489
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 13,486
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             13,486
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    13,486
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.33
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.33


</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Kelly Duncan, Appellant.

[800 NYS2d 5]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael J. Obús, J.), rendered September 23, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a persistent felony offender, to a term of 15 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

The court should have granted defendant’s suppression motion. Defendant was in custody when he was asked why he had changed his shirt, in that a reasonable, innocent person in defendant’s situation would not have felt free to leave *(see Matter of Ricardo S.,*297 AD2d 255 [2002]). Furthermore, the question about the shirt constituted interrogation. Unlike *People v Huffman*(41 NY2d 29 [1976]), the police did not come upon a crime in progress or need to clarify the situation. Nevertheless, the error in admitting defendant’s reply was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Defendant’s statement contributed little or nothing to the People’s already overwhelming case. In addition to the victim’s prompt identification of defendant, the chain of events leading up to defendant’s arrest provided strong corroborating evidence.

Defendant was properly sentenced as a persistent felony offender *(People v Rivera,*5 NY3d 61 [2005]). Concur—Buckley, P.J., Tom, Saxe, Friedman and Sweeny, JJ.
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 16

- 218 V

Filed: April 29, 2016

UNPUBLISHED

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

EVONNE RISDALL

, *

*

Petitioner, * Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;

* Influenza ;

* Shoulder Injury ( “ SIRVA ” ) ;

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Special Processing Unit (“SPU”)

AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

*

Respondent. *

*

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Jeffrey S. Pop, Jeffrey S. Pop & Associates, Beverly Hills, CA

, for petitioner.

Ryan Pyles , U

. S

. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1

Dorsey

, Chief Special Master:

On February 12, 2016

, p etitioner filed a petition for compensation under the

National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa

- 10, et seq

. , 2 (the

“Vaccine Act”)

. Peti tioner alleges that s he suffered a shoulder injury following receipt of

her October 8, 2014 influenza vaccination

. Petit ion at 1. The case was assigned to the

Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On A pril 28, 2016

, respondent filed her Rule 4(c) r eport in which she concedes

that petitioner is entitled to compensa tion in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report

at 1

. Specifically, respondent “ has concluded that petitioner’s alleged injury is

consistent with SIRVA [S houlder I njury R elated to V accine A dministration] ; that a

preponderance of evidence establishes that her SIRVA was ca used

- in

- fact by the flu

vaccination she received on October 8, 2014; and that no other causes for petitioner’s

SIRVA were identified. ” Id. at 2

. Respondent further agrees that p etitioner suffered

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the

undersigned intends to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, in accordance wi th

the E

- Government Act of 2002

. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of

Electronic Government Services). In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioner has 14 days to

identify and move to redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an

unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, the undersigned agrees that the identified material fits

within this definition, the undersigned will redact such material from public access.

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99

- 660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for

ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subpara graph of 42 U.S.C. §

300aa (2012 ).2 sequela of her injury for more than six months and that all legal prerequisites for

compensation under the Va ccine Act have been satisfied

. Id

. at 2

- 3

.

In view of respondent’s concession and the evidence before me, the

undersigned find s that petitioner is entitle d to compensation

.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Nora Beth Dorsey

Nora Beth Dorsey

Chief Special Master
IN RE M.D.S.T.

No. COA06-1673

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Filed May 1, 2007

Certification Date May 21, 2007

Appeal from Wilkes (03J163).

Case reported without published opinion. Vacated.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-01-1999
<CASH>                                         77,966
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  566,286
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    613,042
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               1,319,733
<PP&E>                                         2,296,097
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (843,285)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 10,126,760
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          3,951,920
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       9,536
<OTHER-SE>                                     4,951,454
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   10,126,760
<SALES>                                        1,162,640
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               1,162,640
<CGS>                                          557,662
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  557,662
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               1,506,510
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             307,487
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,008,186)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,008,186)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,008,186)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.11)
        


</TABLE>