alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 755/2013Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 755/2013 of 5 August 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 755/2013                     

# of 5 August 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, 5 August 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.
EMERGING DISPLAY TECHNOLOGIES, CORP. v. UNICOMP, INC.

No. COA06-27.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed February 6, 2007.

Certification Date February 26, 2007.

Appeal from the Wake (04CVS11629).

Case Reported Without Published Opinion. Affirmed.
# Commission Regulation (EU) No 554/2013Show full title

Commission Regulation (EU) No 554/2013 of 13 June 2013 establishing a prohibition of fishing for haddock in VIIb-k, VIII,            IX and X; EU waters of CECAF 34.1.1 by vessels flying the flag of Spain         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Regulation (EU) No 554/2013                     

# of 13 June 2013

# establishing a prohibition of fishing for haddock in VIIb-k, VIII, IX and X; EU waters of CECAF 34.1.1 by vessels flying the                        flag of Spain                     

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, 13 June 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.
STATE of North Carolina v. Anthony L. GLADDEN.

No. 151P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 4, 2006.

Richard E. Jester, for Anthony Gladden.

C. Norman Young, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Edward W. Grannis, Jr., District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by Defendant on the 24th day of March 2006 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30 (substantial constitutional question), the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the notice of appeal is

"Dismissed ex mero motu by order of the Court in conference, this the 4th day of May 2006."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 24th day of March 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 4th day of May 2006."
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1

                             ON COMMAND CORPORATION

                        STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION
                             OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                    (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE AMOUNTS)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                   YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31,
                                                               --------------------------------
                                                                 1996        1995        1994
                                                               --------     -------     -------
<S>                                                            <C>          <C>         <C>
Net income loss..............................................  $(14,739)    $ 4,902     $ 3,456
Redeemable common stock accretion............................      (483)       (641)       (600)
                                                                 ------      ------      ------
Net income loss applicable to nonredeemable common stock.....  $(15,222)    $ 4,261     $ 2,856
                                                                 ======      ======      ======
Weighted average common shares outstanding...................    22,625      17,554      14,024
Weighted average common equivalent shares:
  Redeemable common stock....................................        --       1,167       1,167
  Warrants and options.......................................                   685         631
                                                                 ------      ------      ------
Total shares used in per share computations..................    22,125      19,406      15,822
                                                                 ======      ======      ======
Net income loss per common and equivalent share..............  $  (0.67)    $  0.22     $  0.18
                                                                 ======      ======      ======
</TABLE>
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 568 

To amend section 255 of the National Housing Act to remove the limitation 

on the number of reverse mortgages that may be insured under the 

FHA mortgage insurance program for such mortgages. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 18, 2007 

Mr. MATHESON (for himself, Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida, Mr. 

FRANK of Massachusetts, Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky, Ms. WATERS, Mrs. 

BIGGERT, and Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To amend section 255 of the National Housing Act to remove the limitation on the number of reverse mortgages 

that may be insured under the FHA mortgage insurance 

program for such mortgages. 

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 ‘‘Reverse Mortgages to 

5 Help America’s Seniors Act’’. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
2 

•HR 568 IH

1 SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF CAP ON NUMBER OF MORTGAGES 

2 INSURED. 

3 Section 255 of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 

4 1715z–20) is amended— 

5 (1) in subsection (g), by striking the first sen6 tence; and 

7 (2) in subsection (i)(1)(C), by striking ‘‘limita8 tions’’ and inserting ‘‘limitation’’. 

Æ 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
STATE of North Carolina v. David Edwin DIERDORF.

No. 618P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 26, 2006.

Douglas L. Hall, Morganton, for David E. Dierdorf.

John G. Barnwell, Assistant Attorney General, James C. Gaither, Jr., District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 3rd day of November 2005 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 26th day of January 2006."
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 ADOPTED

PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of KH Funding Company (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Robert L. Harris, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) and 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 operation of the Company.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                      |  |  |  |                                                       
|--------------------- |  |  |  | ------------------------------------------------------
|                      |  | 
|Dated August 16, 2004 |  |  |  | /s/ ROBERT L. HARRIS                                  
|                      |  |  |  | Robert L. Harris President and Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 21.1

SUBSIDIARIES OF DRIL-QUIP, INC.



|                                              |  |                            
|--------------------------------------------- |  | ---------------------------
|Name of Entity                                |  | Jurisdiction ofOrganization
|Dril-Quip (Europe) Limited                    |  | Scotland                   
|Dril-Quip Asia Pacific PTE Ltd.               |  | Singapore                  
|Dril-Quip do Brasil LTDA                      |  | Brazil                     
|Dril-Quip (Nigeria) Ltd                       |  | Nigeria                    
|Dril-Quip Egypt for Petroleum Services S.A.E. |  | Egypt                      
|Dril-Quip (Tianjin) Oilfield Services Ltd     |  | China                      
|Dril-Quip France SARL                         |  | France                     
|Dril-Quip Angola LTDA                         |  | Angola                     
|Dril-Quip Holdings Pty. Ltd.                  |  | Australia                  
|Dril-Quip (Ghana) Limited                     |  | Ghana
STATE v. FLORES-RENTERIA.

No. COA06-267.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed March 6, 2007.

Certification March 26, 2007.

Appeal from the Mecklenburg (05CRS211026).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
IN RE J.J.

No. COA06-1299.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed February 6, 2007.

Certification Date February 26, 2007.

Appeal from the Mecklenburg (06JT67, 06JT68, 06JT69).

Case Reported Without Published Opinion. Affirmed.
[caad 234]E<PAGE>

                                   Exhibit 11

                        PAULA FINANCIAL AND SUBSIDIARIES
               COMPUTATION OF BASIC AND DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE
                      (In thousands, except per share data)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                              THREE MONTHS ENDED                 NINE MONTHS ENDED
                                                                  SEPTEMBER 30,                      SEPTEMBER 30,
                                                              1999             1998             1999             1998
                                                           ---------        ---------        ---------        -----------
<S>                                                        <C>              <C>              <C>              <C>
Net income (loss)                                          $   2,116        $   1,634        $   4,240        ($    5,344)
                                                           =========        =========        =========        ===========
Weighted average shares outstanding for calculating
      basic earnings per share                             5,833,625        6,276,451        5,895,139          6,309,895

Options                                                        2,959          230,203            4,860                  -
                                                           ---------        ---------        ---------        -----------
Total shares for calculating diluted earnings
      per share                                            5,836,584        6,506,654        5,899,999          6,309,895
                                                           =========        =========        =========        ===========
Basic earnings (loss) per share                            $    0.36        $    0.26        $    0.72        ($     0.85)
                                                           =========        =========        =========        ===========
Diluted earnings (loss) per share                          $    0.36        $    0.25        $    0.72        ($     0.85)
                                                           =========        =========        =========        ===========
</TABLE>


                                      15
(September 20, 2005)

#### Robert Seaton, Respondent, v Budget Rent A Car Corporation et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

[804 NYS2d 49]

*793Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barry Salman, J.), entered December 24, 2003, which, to the extent appealed from, denied the motion by defendant Budget Rent A Car Corporation (Budget) and the cross motion by defendant De Fu Shyu, sued herein as Fu De Shyu (Shyu), insofar as such applications sought summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against the moving and cross-moving defendants, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion and cross motion granted to the extent of granting Budget and Shyu summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, on a search of the record, summary judgment also granted dismissing the complaint as against defendant Barrington Smith (Smith), and the remainder of the action severed for further proceedings. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment dismissing the complaint as against Budget, Smith and Shyu. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered on or about May 10, 2004, which, upon Budget’s motion for renewal or reargument, adhered to the determination rendered in the aforesaid order entered December 24, 2003, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as academic, in view of the foregoing.

Budget and Shyu are entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them. The uncontradicted deposition testimony of plaintiff and Shyu establishes that neither Shyu nor Smith, the driver of the vehicle owned by Budget, contributed to the causation of the collision between plaintiffs vehicle and the vehicle driven by decedent Vicano. It should be noted that Vicano’s vehicle was the only one that came into contact with plaintiffs vehicle. On a search of the record, we also grant summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against Smith, for the same reason summary judgment is being granted to Budget. We further note that the record establishes that plaintiff has abandoned his cause of action against Smith by failing to take proceedings for the entry of a default judgment against Smith within one year after Smith’s apparent default *(see*CPLR 3215 [c]). Concur—Buckley, P.J., Tom, Saxe, Friedman and Sweeny, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY   INFORMATION   EXTRACTED  FROM  THE  FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS OF THE MARCH 31, 1997 FORM 10Q OF RESURGENCE  PROPERTIES  INC. AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                      28,373,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,190,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (111,000)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              94,328,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    300,000
<COMMON>                                       100,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  62,192,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                94,328,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,781,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,396,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,077,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             109,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              4,199,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          4,199,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 4,199,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
         

</TABLE>
PAWLIK v. FORTUNATI

No. COA06-805.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed June 5, 2007.

Certification Date June 25, 2007.

Appeal from New Hanover (05CVS1525).

Cases reported without published opinion. Dismissed.
EXHIBIT 21


                              LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

    Entity                                                     Jurisdiction of Formation
<S>                                                                        <C>
    Envoy Inns of Morrisville, LLC                                      Delaware
    JAGI Cleveland - Hudson, LLC                                        Delaware
    JAGI Cleveland - Independence, LLC                                  Delaware
    JAGI Montrose West, LLC                                             Delaware
    JAGI North Canton, LLC                                              Delaware
    Janus American Services Corp.                                       Delaware
    Janus Cleveland - Independence, Inc.                                Delaware
    Janus Hospitality I, LLC                                            Delaware
    JI Subsidiary, Inc.                                                 Delaware
    Kings Dominion Lodge, GP                                            Virginia
    Beckelbe, Inc.                                                      Delaware
    Beckelbe, Ltd.                                                        Ohio
    JAGI Juno, LLC                                                      Delaware
    Motel Associates of Pompano Beach, Inc.                             Florida
    JAGI Pompano, LLC                                                   Delaware
    JAGI Doswell, LLC                                                   Delaware
</TABLE>
DIGGS v. NOVANT HEALTH, et al.

No. 299P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 30, 2006.

Roberta B. King, Joshua H. Bennett, Winston-Salem, for Forsyth Medical Center.

Harold L. Kennedy, III, Harvey L. Kennedy, Annie Brown Kennedy, Winston-Salem, for Mary Diggs.

Linwood Jones, Raleigh, for N.C. Hospital Association.

Harvey L. Cosper, Jr., William B. Cannon, Charlotte, for NCADA.

James R. Morgan, Jr., Winston-Salem, Ronald W. Burris, Albemarle, for NC Chapter of Am. Society.

Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ___, 628 S.E.2d 851.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 27th day of October 2006 by Defendant (Forsyth Memorial Hospital) for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference this the 30th day of October 2006."