alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 514/2013Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 514/2013 of 4 June 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 514/2013                     

# of 4 June 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, 4 June 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.
IIB 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5571 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 2, 2008 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

AN ACT 

To extend for 5 years the program relating to waiver of 

the foreign country residence requirement with respect 

to international medical graduates, and for other purposes. 

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


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
2 

HR 5571 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF WAIVER PROGRAM. 

2 Section 220(c) of the Immigration and Nationality 

3 Technical Corrections Act of 1994 (8 U.S.C. 1182 note) 

4 is amended by striking ‘‘June 1, 2008’’ and inserting 

5 ‘‘June 1, 2013’’. 

6 SEC. 2. EXPANDING THE FLEXIBILITY OF THE CONRAD 

7 STATE 30 PROGRAM. 

8 Section 214(l)(1)(D)(ii) of the Immigration and Na9 tionality Act (8 U.S.C. 1184(l)(1)(D)(ii)) is amended by 

10 striking ‘‘5’’ and inserting ‘‘10’’. 

11 SEC. 3. SENSE OF CONGRESS. 

12 It is the sense of the Congress that— 

13 (1) Federal programs waiving the 2-year for14 eign residence requirement under section 212(e) of 

15 the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 

16 1182(e)) for physicians are generally designed to 

17 promote the delivery of critically needed medical 

18 services to people in the United States lacking ade19 quate access to physician care; and 

20 (2) when determining the qualification of a lo21 cation for designation as a health professional short22 age area, the Secretary of Health and Human Serv23 ices should consider the needs of vulnerable popu24 lations in low-income and impoverished communities, 

25 communities with high infant mortality rates, and 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
3 

HR 5571 RFS 

1 communities exhibiting other signs of a lack of nec2 essary physician services. 

Passed the House of Representatives May 21, 2008. 

Attest: LORRAINE C. MILLER, 

Clerk. 

By ROBERT F. REEVES, 

Deputy Clerk. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
This opinion is subject to administrative correction before final disposition.

Before TANG , LAWRENCE, and RUSSELL , Appellate Military Judges

_________________________ 

### UNITED STATES Appellee

v. Steven K. MITCHELL Gunnery Sergeant (E

- 7 ), U.S. Marine Corps Appellant
No. 201900 1 34
Decided: 31 October 2019. Appeal from the United S tates Navy

- Marine Corps Trial Judiciary

. Sentence adjudged 3 1 January 2019 by a special court

- martial convened at Marine Corps Air Station Beaufort, South Carolina , consisting of a military judge sitting alone

. Military Judge: Lieutenant Colonel Michael D. Libretto, USMC

. Sen tence approved by the convening authority : confinement for 220 days , reduction to pay grade E

- 1, and a bad

- conduct discharge

. For Appellant: Commander R. Donald Evans, Jr., JAGC, USN

. For Appellee: Brian K. Keller, Esq.

_________________________ This opinion does not serve as binding precedent, but may be cited as persuasive authority under

NMCCA Rule of Appellate P rocedure 30.2.

_________________________U nited States v. Mitchell , No. 201 9 00 134

2 PER CURIAM : After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of error, we have determined that the findings and sentence are correct in law and fact and that no error materially prejudicial to Appellant’s substantial rights occurred. Article s 59 and 66, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859, 866. T he findings and sentence are AFFIRMED

.

FOR THE COURT:

RODGER A. DREW, JR. Clerk of Court
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

SAITAMA KANKON SOUSAI CENTER CO., LTD., a Foreign Corporation

, Appellant,

v.

UNITED YACHT TRANSPORT, LLC.
, Appellee

.

No. 4D 17

- 2965

[ September 27, 2018 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Michael L. Gates , Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE

- 15

- 007859 (12)

.

Elio F. Martinez, Jr. and Robert R. Jimenez of Espinosa Martinez PL, Miami, for appellant.

Neil Bayer and Chas e Jansson of Kennedys Americas, LLP, Miami, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

C IKLIN
, C ONNER

, JJ., and M IRMAN
, L AWRENCE , Associate Judge, concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Exhibit 4.3


 


Consent of Independent Registered
Public Accounting Firm


We consent to the
reference made to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” in Part B of the Prospectus
and to the use of our report dated July 19, 2016, in this Registration Statement (Form S-6 No. 333-211084) of Smart Trust 256,
comprising Smart Trust, Miller/Howard North American Energy Opportunities Trust, Series 3.


 


/s/ Grant
Thornton LLP


 


Chicago, Illinois


July 19, 2016
|                                             |                | Exhibit 99(a)
|-------------------------------------------- | -------------- | -------------
|Household Finance Corporation                |                |              
|HRSI Funding, Inc. III                       |                |              
|Saks Credit Card Master Trust, Series 2001-2 |               
|                                             |                |              
|                                             |                |              
|Original Class A Principal                   | 333,000,000.00 |              
|Number of Class A Bonds (000's)              | 333,000        |              
|Original Class B Principal                   | 36,000,000.00  |              
|Number of Class B Bonds (000's)              | 36,000         |              
|                                             |                |              
|                                             |                |              
|                                             |                | 2003 Totals  
|                                             |                |              
|CLASS A                                      |                |              
|Class A Principal Distributions              |                | 0.00         
|Class A Interest                             |                | 4,956,689.09 
|                                             |                |              
|                                             |                |              
|CLASS B                                      |                |              
|Class B Principal Distributions              |                | 0.00         
|Class B Interest                             |                | 685,098.28
STATE v. MILLER

No. COA06-1373.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed June 19, 2007

Certification Date July 9, 2007.

Appeal from Rowan (05CRS4423, 05CRS50070).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
# L_2017059EN.01004001.xml

| 7.3.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 59/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 59/40

---

Corrigendum to Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 665/2013 of 3 May 2013 supplementing Directive 2010/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to energy labelling of vacuum cleaners

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 192 of 13 July 2013
  )

On page 7, in Annex II, point 1.1:

for:

‘The design of the labels shall be in accordance with point 4.1 of this Annex.’

read:

‘The design of the labels shall be in accordance with point 3.1 of this Annex.’

On page 8, in Annex II, point 1.2:

for:

‘The design of the labels shall be in accordance with point 4.2 of this Annex.’

read:

‘The design of the labels shall be in accordance with point 3.2 of this Annex.’

On page 9, in Annex II, point 1.3:

for:

‘The design of the labels shall be in accordance with point 4.3 of this Annex.’

read:

‘The design of the labels shall be in accordance with point 3.3 of this Annex.’

On page 10, in Annex II, point 2.1:

for:

‘The design of the labels shall be in accordance with point 4.1 of this Annex..’

read:

‘The design of the labels shall be in accordance with point 3.1 of this Annex..’

On page 10, in Annex II, point 2.2:

for:

‘The design of the labels shall be in accordance with point 4.2 of this Annex.’

read:

‘The design of the labels shall be in accordance with point 3.2 of this Annex.’

On page 11, in Annex II, point 2.3:

for:

‘The design of the labels shall be in accordance with point 4.3 of this Annex.’

read:

‘The design of the labels shall be in accordance with point 3.3 of this Annex.’

On page 14, in Annex II, point 3.2:

for:

‘The design description of the label shall be in accordance with point 4.1 of this Annex except for Number 9 where the following applies:’

read:

‘The design description of the label shall be in accordance with point 3.1 of this Annex except for Number 9 where the following applies:’

On page 15, in Annex II, point 3.3:

for:

‘The design description of the label shall be in accordance with point 4.1 of this Annex except for Number 10 where the following applies:’

read:

‘The design description of the label shall be in accordance with point 3.1 of this Annex except for Number 10 where the following applies:’

---
#### In the Matter of Dutchess County Support Collection Unit, on Behalf of Christopher Labshere, Appellant, v Eleftheria Kasekas, Respondent.

[800 NYS2d 763]

In a support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the Dutchess County Support Collection Unit, on behalf of Christopher Labshere, appeals from (1) an order of the Family Court, Dutchess County (Forman, J.), dated April 9, 2004, and (2) a “corrected” order of the same court entered April 20, 2004, which denied its objections to an order of the same court (Winslow, S.M.), entered January 22, 2004, denying its motion to vacate an order of the same court (Winslow, H.E.), dated March 18, 2002, which, after a hearing, and upon the father’s default, inter alia, upwardly modified the father’s child support obligation to the sum of $161 per week.

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated April 9, 2004, is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as that order was superseded by the corrected order dated April 20, 2004; and it is further,

Ordered that the corrected order dated April 20, 2004, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Family Court correctly determined that the Dutchess *961County Support Collection Unit (hereinafter DCSCU) had no standing to move to vacate the previously-entered support order. Although DCSCU is authorized “to collect, account for and disburse funds paid pursuant to any order of child support or child support and spousal support issued under the provisions of section two hundred thirty-six or two hundred forty of the domestic relations law, or article four, five, five-A or five-B of the family court act” (Social Services Law § 111-h [1]) and to provide various forms of assistance to a petitioner for child support *(see*Family Ct Act § 580-307), it has no obligation to enforce an order it perceived to have been made without jurisdiction under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act *(see*Family Ct Act § 580-507). Since DCSCU has no institutional stake, financial or otherwise, in the validity or lack of validity of the order and there is a party, the obligor, who has a clear interest in attempting to vacate the order if improper, DCSCU is not an “interested person” entitled to move to vacate the order pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (4) *(Lloyd Capital Corp. v Behrmann,*122 AD2d 783 [1986]; *see Schellenberg v Wiemann,*120 AD2d 659, 660 [1986]). H. Miller, J.P., Santucci, Spolzino and Skelos, JJ., concur.
STATE v. ROGERS.

No. COA05-1047.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed July 5, 2006.

Certification Date July 25, 2006.

Appeal from Guilford (04CRS93602).

Case without published opinion. No error.
STATE v. Clyde E. WILLIAMSON.

No. 296P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 3, 2007.

Douglas L. Hall, Morganton, for Clyde E. Williamson.

Christa McTal Williamson, Pro Se.

Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, Michael Bonfoey, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 23rd day of October 2006 by Defendant To Pray Leave To Document Issue Addressed In Previous Pro Se Filing Upon Showing of Good Cause As To Delay:

> "Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference this the 3rd day of May 2007."
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

February 26, 2014

No. 04-13-00892-CV

Dora GULLEY,

Appellant

v.

STATE FARM LLOYDS,

Appellee

From the 288th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2008-CI-03371

Honorable Solomon Casseb, III, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The reporter’s record was due to be filed with this court by January 16, 2014. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 35.1. On February 20, 2014, court reporter Erminia Uvideo filed a notification of late 

reporter’s record. The notification requested an extension of time to file the record until March 

20, 2014, for an extension of sixty-three days. 

The request is GRANTED IN PART. The reporter’s record must be filed with this court 

not later than March 17, 2014. NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS OF TIME TO FILE THE 

REPORTER’S RECORD WILL BE GRANTED. 

If the reporter’s record is not filed as ordered, a SHOW CAUSE order shall issue 

directing Erminia Uviedo to appear on a day certain and show cause why she should not be held 

in contempt for failing to file the record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 35.3(c); see also TEX. GOV’T CODE 

ANN. § 21.002 (West 2004) (authorizing contemnor punishment up to “a fine of not more than 

$500 or confinement in the county jail for not more than six months, or both such a fine and 

confinement in jail”); Johnson v. State, 151 S.W.3d 193, 195–96 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (noting 

the court’s previous action holding a court reporter in contempt for “repeatedly fail[ing] to 

prepare and file the record” and “order[ing] him incarcerated . . . until the record was finished”).

The clerk of this court shall cause a copy of this order to be served on Erminia Uviedo by 

certified mail, return receipt requested, with delivery restricted to addressee only, or give other 

personal notice of this order with proof of delivery.
_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 26th day of February, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
TORRES v. JOHNSTON COUNTY

No. COA06-1071.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed June 19, 2007

Certification Date July 9, 2007.

Appeal from Johnston (03CVS3480).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
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 report of Poster Financial Group, Inc., (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Timothy N. Poster,
as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, to the best of his knowledge, that:


          1.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections
               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.




Dated:  May 16, 2005                                /s/ Timothy N. Poster
                                                  ------------------------------
                                                  Timothy N. Poster
                                                  Chairman of the Board and
                                                  Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 31.2 

 

**Certification of Chief Financial Officer**

 

I, John D. Reedy, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Michael Foods, Inc.; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report; 

 

4. The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

 

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared; 

 

b)Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and 

 

c) Disclosed in thisreport any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s second fiscal quarter of 2004 that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5. Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (orpersons performing the equivalent functions): 

 

a) allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and 

 

b) any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: August 3, 2004
EXHIBIT 32.5
 
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 906 OF THE
 SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 I, Patrick J. Goodman, Vice President and Treasurer of MidAmerican Funding, LLC (the Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:
 
 (1)
the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2004 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and(2)
the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company. 
 
 
 
 Dated: August 3, 2004
 
 
 /s/ Patrick J. Goodman
 Patrick J. Goodman
 Vice President and Treasurer
 (chief financial officer)
FORMYDUVAL v. BRITT.

No. 357A06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 8, 2006.

Ronnie M. Mitchell, Coy E. Brewer, Jr., Fayetteville, for Britt.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 5th day of September 2006 by Plaintiff for Extension of Time to File Brief:

"Motion Allowed. Plaintiff (Formyduval) shall have up to and including the 11th day of October 2006 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court. By order of the Court in conference this the 8th day of September 2006."