alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Commission Regulation (EU) No 949/2013Show full title

Commission Regulation (EU) No 949/2013 of 2 October 2013 establishing a prohibition of fishing for blue ling in EU and international            waters of II and IV by vessels flying the flag of the United Kingdom         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Regulation (EU) No 949/2013                     

# of 2 October 2013

# establishing a prohibition of fishing for blue ling in EU and international waters of II and IV by vessels flying the flag                        of the United Kingdom                     

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring                           compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy(1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Council Regulation (EU) No 39/2013 of 21 January 2013 fixing for 2013 the fishing opportunities available to EU vessels for                              certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks which are not subject to international negotiations or agreements(2), lays down quotas for 2013.

(2)According to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation                              by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for                              2013.

(3)It is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

## Article 1U.K.Quota exhaustion

The fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein                     for 2013 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.                  

## Article 2U.K.Prohibitions

Fishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in                     the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited                     to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.                  

## Article 3U.K.Entry into force

This Regulation shall enter into force on the 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, 2 October 2013.

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

Lowri Evans                            

*Director-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries*                            

## ANNEXU.K.

1

OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.                           

2

OJ L 23, 25.1.2013, p. 1.
PLATINUM CONST. CORP. v. STANLEY.

No. COA05-151.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed January 17, 2006.

Certification Date February 6, 2006.

Appeal from Forsyth (03CVS3848).

Case reported without published opinion. Dismissed.
In the Matter of L.C., I.C., L.C., Minor Children. appealed by Father.

No. 39P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 3, 2007.

Peter Wood, for Father.

Thomas W. Jordan, Assistant County Attorney, for Durham County DSS.

Dana Jones, Durham, for Guardian ad Litem.

Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ___, 638 S.E.2d 638.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 23rd day of January 2007 by Respondent (Father) 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 3rd day of May 2007."

Justice HUDSON recused.
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 165 (Friday, August 26, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 50402]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-16987]



[[Page 50402]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[NV-910-05-0777XX]


Notice of Public Meeting: Sierra Front-Northwestern Great Basin 
Resource Advisory Council, Northeastern Great Basin Resource Advisory 
Council, and Mojave-Southern Great Basin Resource Advisory Council

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Combined resource advisory council meeting.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act 
and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA), the Department 
of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Resource Advisory 
Council meeting will be held as indicated below.

DATES: The three councils will meet on Thursday, October 20 from 8 a.m. 
to 5 p.m. and Friday, October 21, from 8 a.m. to 2 p.m., at the Elko 
Convention Center, 700 Moren Way, Elko, Nevada 89801.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jo Simpson, Chief, Office of 
Communications, BLM Nevada State Office, 1340 Financial Blvd., Reno, 
Nevada, telephone (775) 861-6586; or Debra Kolkman at telephone (775) 
289-1946.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 15-member Councils advise the Secretary 
of the Interior, through the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), on a 
variety of planning and management issues associated with public land 
management in Nevada. Agenda topics include a presentation and 
discussion of accomplishments during 2005 and the outlook for 2006 for 
the BLM in Nevada; opening remarks and closeout reports of the three 
Resource Advisory Councils (RACs); breakout meetings of each group 
category; breakout meetings of the three RACs; setting of schedules for 
meetings of the individual RACs for the coming year, and other issues 
members of the Councils may raise. A detailed agenda will be available 
at http://www.nv.blm.gov or by calling (775) 289-1946, after October 
16, 2005. All meetings are open to the public. The public may present 
written comments to the three RAC groups or the individual RACs. The 
public comment period for the Council meeting will be at 3 p.m. on 
Thursday, October 20. Individuals who plan to attend and need further 
information about the meeting or need special assistance such as sign 
language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should 
contact Debra Kolkman at the BLM Nevada State Office, 1340 Financial 
Blvd., Reno, Nevada, telephone (775) 289-1946.

    Dated: August 22, 2005.
Amy L. Lueders,
Acting State Director, Nevada.
[FR Doc. 05-16987 Filed 8-25-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-HC-P
STATE v. Kenneth D. BOBBITT.

No. 667P03-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 17, 2006.

Daniel P. O'Brien, Assistant Attorney General, Tom Horner, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 8th day of May 2006 by Defendant to proceed in forma pauperis:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference this the 17th day of August 2006."
Exhibit
32.2





TELETOUCH
COMMUNICATIONS, INC.





OFFICER’S
CERTIFICATION


PURSUANT
TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18
U.S.C. 1350)





In
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of TELETOUCH COMMUNICATIONS,
INC. (the “Company”) for the quarter ended August 31, 2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the
undersigned, Douglas E. Sloan, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to the best of his
knowledge:





1.
            The
      Report is in full compliances 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 results of operation of the Company.





/s/ Douglas E.
      SloanDouglas
      E. SloanChief
      Financial OfficerDecember
      23, 2009
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the Court has determined th a t

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. 99-40011

Summary Calendar

_______________________________________

IN THE MATTER OF: Joseph A. Hansler, doing

business as Automated Services, Inc.,

Debtor.

JOSEPH A. HANSLER,

Appellant,

versus

ALLEN L. POTTER,

Appellee.

____________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

(96-20848-C-13)

_____________________________________________

November 26, 1999

Before POLITZ, WIENER, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam: *

This appeal presents one issue: Whether the bankruptcy court

had jurisdiction to approve and disburse attorney’s fees to Allan

Potter (“Potter”) after Chapter 13 debtor Joseph Hansler (“debtor”)

exercised his right to d ismiss the proceeding. We hold that it

did.

The debtor invoked his right to dismiss under 11 U.S.C. §

1307(b) on August 13, 1997. Twelve days later, on August 25,2 See 11 U.S.C. §§ 330, 331.

1 In re Harshbarger

, 205 B.R. 109 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 1996)

(quoting In re Fricker , 131 B.R. 932, 938 (Bankr. E.D.Pa. 1991));

see also In re Lawson , 156 B.R. 43, 46-47 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1993),

aff’d 999 F.2d 543 (9th Cir. 1993) (holding that court had

jurisdiction to award attorney’s fees even after the bankruptcy was

dismissed).

2 11 U.S. C. § 350; c f. Lathorp v. Meyer (In re Helena B.

Lathorp), 49 B.R. 885, 887 (1985).

2 Potter, the debtor’s former attorney who had represented the debtor

in his Chapter 13 proceeding, filed a motion with the bankruptcy

court to reconsider its August 13 order dismissing the case. The

sole purpose of the motion was to get the court to approve and the

trustee to disburse attorney’s fees. Eventually, this disbursement

was funded in part by the trustee’s recovery of funds that had been

erroneously disbursed to another creditor. The Code expressly

provide that the debtor’s attorney can apply to the court, and the

court may approve, compensation for services rendered to the

estate. 2

Like othe r courts that have considered this issue, we hold

that dismissal of a Chapter 13 proceeding “does not result in the

bankruptcy court losing jurisdiction to consider the allowance of

attorney fees to Debtor’s counsel.” 1 Moreover, until the estate is

fully administered and the court has discharged t he trustee, the

trustee has the power, inter alia

, to correct errors made during

the administration process. 2 Although the debtor’s § 1307(b)

dismissal may have precluded the bankruptcy court from taking other

actions, the c ourt had jurisdiction to approve and disburse

attorney’s fees to Potter.3

As our holding on this point resolves this appeal, we need not

address other issues raised b y the parties. The judgment of the

bankruptcy court is AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

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

In connection with the Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2007 (the Report) of APOLLO INVESTMENT CORPORATION (the Registrant), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, RICHARD L. PETEKA, the
Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of 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, as amended; and

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



|                       
|-----------------------
|                       
|/s/ RICHARD L. PETEKA  
|Name: Richard L. Peteka
|Date: August 8, 2007
STATE v. Terry GILMORE.

No. 45P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 8, 2007.

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

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 24th day of January 2007 by Defendant for "Petition for Plain Error Review Pursuant to N.C.G.S. 7A-31(B)(1)(2)(3)(4)":

*365"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference this the 8th day of March 2007."
IN RE S.M.M.

No. COA06-1057.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed February 20, 2007.

Certification Date March 12, 2007.

Appeal from Hertford (05J14).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
STATE v. Darrell Wayne MANESS.

No. 402A06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 24, 2007.

Rex Gore, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 21st day of May 2007 by Defendant for Extension of Time to Serve Proposed Record on Appeal:

"Motion Allowed. Defendant shall have up to and including the 11th day of June 2007 to serve his/her proposed record upon the district attorney. The parties shall then proceed to settle and file the record on appeal pursuant to the provisions of Appellate Rules 11 and 12. By order of the Court in conference this the 24th day of May 2007."
In the Matter of M.D.D. appealed by Respondent-Mother.

No. 56P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 8, 2007.

Richard Croutharmel, for Mother.

David A. Perez, for Randolph County DSS.

Leigh A. Kite, Charlotte, for Guardian ad Litem.

*231*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 31st day of January 2007 by Respondent (Mother) in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th day of March 2007."
STATE v. GUNTER

No. COA06-1377.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed June 19, 2007

Certification Date July 9, 2007.

Appeal from Haywood (05CRS 1366).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 334/2013Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 334/2013 of 11 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 334/2013                     

# of 11 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, 11 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.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-7213

MARLIN MCCLAIN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

THOMAS L. MCBRIDE, Warden, Mount Olive

Correctional Complex,

Respondent - Appellee.

and

MIKE COLEMAN, Warden,

Respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern

District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr.,

District Judge. (CA-04-1130)

Submitted: December 22, 2005 Decided: December 30, 2005

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marlin McClain, Appellant Pro Se. Darrell V. McGraw, Jr., Dawn

Ellen Warfield, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA,

Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
- 2 -

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 3 -

PER CURIAM:

Marlin McClain seeks to appeal the district court’s order

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing

as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. This order is

not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district

court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable and

that any dispositive procedural findings by the district court are

also debatable or wrong. See 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 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently

reviewed the record and conclude that McClain 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
EXHIBIT 32.1


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 quarterly report of Apollo Investment Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2019 (the “Report”), I, Howard Widra, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and I, Gregory W. Hunt, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:


|   |                                                                                                                                       
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|1. | To my knowledge, 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 results of operations of the Company.

/s/ HOWARD WIDRAHoward WidraChief Executive OfficerAugust 6, 2019


/s/ GREGORY W. HUNTGregory W. HuntChief Financial Officer and TreasurerAugust 6, 2019
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 filing of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
for the Quarter Ended March 22, 2005 (the Report) by ClubCorp, Inc. (Registrant), the undersigned hereby certifies that; to the best of his knowledge:



| | 1. | The 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 Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Registrant.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                  |  |                        
|----------------- |  | -----------------------
|Date: May 5, 2005 |  | /s/ Jeffery P. Mayer   
|                  |  | Jeffrey P. Mayer       
|                  |  | Chief Financial Officer



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# L_2016136EN.01001901.xml

| 25.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 136/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 136/19

---

Corrigendum to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1039/2012 of 29 October 2012 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of aluminium radiators originating in the People's Republic of China

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 310 of 9 November 2012
  )

On page 11, Annex I, first column, second entry of the table:

for:

‘Ningbo Ephriam Radiator Equipment Co., Ltd.’,

read:

‘Ningbo Ephraim Radiator Equipment Co., Ltd.’.

---