alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Council Decision 2014/23/CFSPShow full title

Council Decision 2014/23/CFSP of 20 January 2014 repealing Decision 2013/350/CFSP amending and extending the mandate of the            European Union Special Representative for the Middle East peace process         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Council Decision 2014/23/CFSP                     

# of 20 January 2014

# repealing Decision 2013/350/CFSP amending and extending the mandate of the European Union Special Representative for the Middle                        East peace process                     

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 28, Article 31(2) and Article 33 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,

Whereas:

(1)On 23 January 2012, the Council adopted Decision 2012/33/CFSP(1) appointing Mr Andreas REINICKE as the European Union Special Representative (EUSR) for the Middle East peace process.

(2)On 2 July 2013, the Council adopted Decision 2013/350/CFSP(2) extending the mandate of the EUSR until 30 June 2014 and providing a financial reference amount for the period from 1 January                              2013 to 31 December 2013.

(3)On 27 November 2013, the Political and Security Committee acknowledged the way forward proposed by the High Representative                              of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy on the understanding that the EUSR's tasks will be assumed for the time                              being by the European External Action Service (EEAS). Furthermore, regular reporting to Member States as well as high-level                              contacts will be assured.

(4)Decision 2013/350/CFSP should, therefore, be repealed with effect from 1 January 2014,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

## Article 1U.K.Repeal

Decision 2013/350/CFSP is repealed.

## Article 2U.K.Review

The future representation of the Union in relation to the Middle East peace process shall be reviewed before May 2014.

## Article 3U.K.Entry into force

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

It shall apply from1 January 2014.

Done at Brussels, 20 January 2014.

*For the Council*                            

*The President*                            

C. Ashton                            

1

Council Decision 2012/33/CFSP of 23 January 2012 appointing the European Union Special Representative for the Middle East                              peace process (OJ L 19, 24.1.2012, p. 17).                           

2

Council Decision 2013/350/CFSP of 2 July 2013 amending and extending the mandate of the European Union Special Representative                              for the Middle East peace process (OJ L 185, 4.7.2013, p. 3).
EXHIBIT 99.1



                          ANNUAL SERVICER'S CERTIFICATE


                       FIRST NORTH AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK

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

                         FNANB CREDIT CARD MASTER TRUST
                     --------------------------------------


     The undersigned,  a duly authorized  representative of First North American
National Bank ("FNANB"),  as Servicer (the  "Servicer"),  pursuant to the Master
Pooling and Servicing  Agreement,  dated as of October 30,1997(as such agreement
may have been, or may from time to time be,  amended,  supplemented or otherwise
modified, the "Pooling and Servicing  Agreement"),  between FNANB, as Transferor
and as Servicer, and First Union National Bank, as Trustee (the "Trustee"), does
hereby certify that:

     1.   Capitalized  terms  used  in this  Officer's  Certificate  have  their
          respective meanings set forth in the Pooling and Servicing Agreement.

     2.   FNANB is as of the date  hereof the  Servicer  under the  Pooling  and
          Servicing Agreement.

     3.   The undersigned is duly authorized pursuant to the Servicing Agreement
          to execute and deliver this Officer's Certificate to the Trustee.

     4.   This  certificate is delivered  pursuant to Section 3.5 of the Pooling
          and Servicing Agreement.

     5.   A review of the  activities  of the  Servicer  during the Fiscal  Year
          ended February 28, 1999 and of its  performance  under the Pooling and
          Servicing Agreement was made under my supervision.

     6.   Based on such review, to the best of the undersigned's  knowledge, the
          Servicer has fully performed all its obligations under the Pooling and
          Servicing  Agreement  throughout  the Fiscal Year ended  February  28,
          1999,and no event which,  with the giving of notice or passage of time
          or both,  would  constitute  a Servicer  Default  has  occurred  or is
          continuing except as set forth in paragraph 7 below.

     7.   The  following is a  description  of each  Servicer  Default under the
          provisions  of  the  Pooling  and  Servicing  Agreement  known  to the
          undersigned to have occurred during the Fiscal Year ended February 28,
          1999,  which sets forth in detail the (i) nature of each such Servicer
          Default, (ii) the action taken by the Servicer, if any, to remedy each
          such  Servicer  Default  and  (iii)  the  current  status of each such
          Servicer Default: Not Applicable.




          IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  the  undersigned,  a duly  authorized  Servicing
          Officer,  has duly  executed this  certificate  as of this 21st day of
          May, 1999.


                                                        /s/ Michael T. Chalifoux
                                                   Name:    Michael T. Chalifoux
                                                  Title:   Chairman of the Board
                                                            and President
#### In the Matter of Porscha Monique J., an Infant. Graham-Windham Services to Families and Children, et al., Respondents; Jerome W., Appellant.

[799 NYS2d 780]

In a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b to terminate parental rights on the ground of permanent neglect, Jerome W. appeals, as limited by his brief, from (1) so much of an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Freeman, J.), dated April 20, 2004, as, upon his default in appearing at the fact-finding and dispositional hearings, found that he was not the father of the subject child to whom notice of the proceeding was required pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 111-a or whose consent was required for the adoption of the subject child, and transferred custody and guardianship of the subject child to the Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York and Graham-Windham Services to Families and Children for the purpose of adoption, and (2) an order of the same court dated May 10, 2004, which denied his motion to vacate his default in appearing at the fact-finding hearing.

Ordered that the appeal from the order of fact-finding and disposition dated April 20, 2004, is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as no appeal lies from an order made upon the default of an appealing party *(see*CPLR 5511; *Matter of Iris R.,*295 AD2d 521 [2002]; and it is further,

*416Ordered that the order dated May 10, 2004, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Family Court properly denied the appellant’s motion to vacate his default in appearing at the fact-finding hearing. To vacate the default, the appellant had to provide a reasonable excuse for his default and offer a meritorious defense to the proceeding *(see Matter of Helena W.,*6 AD3d 541 [2004]; *Matter of Ricky V.,*4 AD3d 368 [2004]; *Matter of Iris R., supra; Matter of Angel Joseph S.,*282 AD2d 752 [2001]; *Matter of Latisha I.,*238 AD2d 340 [1997]). The appellant’s excuse that he believed the hearing was at a different time was unconvincing in view of the fact that he was in court when the date and time for the hearing were selected *(see Matter of Shakyra M.,*270 AD2d 941 [2000]). Moreover, the appellant did not offer a meritorious defense to the proceeding *(Matter of Helena*W, *supra; Matter of Ricky V, supra; Matter of Iris R., supra).*H. Miller, J.P., Rivera, Spolzino and Skelos, JJ., concur.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19

- 50371 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v. JONATHAN MONDRAGON

- ESTRADA , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:18

- CR

- 3406

- 1

Before JOLLY, JONES, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Jonathan Mondragon

- Estrada appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry following deportation in violation 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2). He argues that the enhancement of his sentence pursuant to § 1326(b)(2) , which increased his statutory maximum sentence to 20 years of imprisonment and three year s of supervised release , is unconstitutional because of the treatment of the provision as a sentencing

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED October 31, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 19-50371 Document: 00515181732 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/31/2019No. 19

- 50371

2 factor rather than as an element of a separate offense that must be proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. He concedes that this argument is foreclosed by Almendarez

- Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224 (1998). However, he seeks to preserve the argument for possible Supreme Court review because, he argues, subsequent decisions indicate tha t the Supreme Court may reconsider its holding in Almendarez

- Torres

. In Almendarez

- Torres , 523 U.S. at 239

- 47, the Supreme Court held that for purposes of a statutory sentencing enhancement, a prior conviction is not a fact that must be alleged in an indi ctment or found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. This court has held that subsequent Supreme Court decisions did not overrule Almendarez

- Torres

. See United States v. Wallace , 759 F.3d 486, 497 (5th Cir. 2014) (considering the effect of Alleyne v. Uni ted States , 570 U.S. 99 (2013)); United States v. Pineda

- Arrellano , 492 F.3d 624, 625

- 26 (5th Cir. 2007) ( considering the effect of Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000)). Thus, Mondragon

- Estrada’s argument is foreclosed. Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, the Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Case: 19-50371 Document: 00515181732 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/31/2019
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Small Business Administration

The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) Region I Regulatory Fairness Board and the SBA Office of the National Ombudsman will hold a public hearing on Thursday, September 29, 2005, at 9 a.m. The meeting will take place at the Warwick Public Library, 600 Sandy Lane, Warwick, RI to receive comments and testimony from small business owners, small government entities, and small non-profit organizations concerning regulatory enforcement and compliance actions taken by federal agencies.

                    Anyone wishing to attend or to make a presentation must contact Normand Deragon in writing or by fax, in order to be put on the agenda. Normand Deragon, Public Information Officer, SBA, Rhode Island District Office, 380 Westminster Street, 5th Floor, Providence, RI 02903, phone (401) 528-4576, fax (401) 528-4539, e-mail:                     *Normand.deragon@sba.gov*.                

                    For more information, see our Web site at                     *http://www.sba.gov/​ombudsman*.                

Matthew K. Becker,

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 05-17112 Filed 8-26-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8025-01-M
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

MELVIN D. BROOKS

, )

)

P etitioner

, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 1 3

- 0135 (RC)

)

)

ISAAC FULWOOD, JR. et al.

, )

)

)

Respondents

. )

MEMORANDUM

Petitioner initiated this action for a writ of habeas corpus to obtain a n immediate hearing

on a parole violator warrant or his release from the District of Columbia Jail

. On June 27, 2013,

t he Court determined that petitioner was not entitled to habeas relief but directed the respondent

to explain why a writ of mandamus compelling a hearing should not issue. See Memorandum

and Order [Dkt. # 10] at 2

- 3 . In response

, the government has shown that petitioner was released

from the D.C. J ail on May 6, 2013, after having “received a probable cause hearing during which

he agreed to admit his violations of parole, forego a revocation hearing, and participate in a

release program.” Fed. Resp’t’s Response to Court Order of June 27, 2013 [Dkt. # 11] at 1 ; see

Exs. A, B

. Hence, th is case will be dismissed as moot. A separate O rder accompanies this

Memorandum.

________/s/____________

RUDOLPH CONTRERAS

United States District Judge

DATE: July 12, 2013
IN RE K.J.

No. COA06-936.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed February 6, 2007.

Certification Date February 26, 2007.

Appeal from the Guilford (04J764).

Case Reported Without Published Opinion. Affirmed.
# Commission Regulation (EU) No 1345/2013Show full title

Commission Regulation (EU) No 1345/2013 of 12 December 2013 establishing a prohibition of fishing for plaice in areas VIIf            and VIIg by vessels flying the flag of the United Kingdom         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Regulation (EU) No 1345/2013                     

# of 12 December 2013

# establishing a prohibition of fishing for plaice in areas VIIf and VIIg 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, 12 December 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.
<Page>
                                  EXHIBIT 21.1
                                  SUBSIDIARIES

<Table>
<Caption>
NAME OF                                                          JURISDICTION OF
SUBSIDIARY                                                        INCORPORATION
----------                                                    ---------------------
<S>                                                           <C>
DNA Plant Technology Corporation(1).........................               Delaware

DNAP Technologies, Inc.(2)..................................               Delaware

FreshWorld Farms, Inc.(2)...................................               Delaware

DNAP Diagnostics, Inc.(2)...................................               Delaware

VPP Corporation(1)..........................................               Delaware

International Produce Holding Company(1)....................               Delaware

Bionova Produce, Inc.(3)....................................                Arizona

R.B. Packing of California, Inc.(3).........................             California

Bionova Produce of Texas, Inc.(3)...........................                  Texas

Premier Fruits & Vegetables BBL, Inc.(4)....................         Quebec, Canada

Premier Fruits & Vegetables (USA), Inc.(4)..................               Delaware

Agrobionova, S.A. de C.V.(5)................................  United Mexican States

Comercializadora Premier, S.A. de C.V.(6)...................  United Mexican States

Siembra Cultivo y Cosecha del Noroeste, S.A. de C.V.(7).....  United Mexican States
</Table>

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

(1) Wholly-owned subsidiary of Bionova Holding Corporation

(2) Wholly-owned subsidiary of DNA Plant Technology Corporation

(3) Wholly-owned subsidiary of International Produce Holding Company

(4) 80% owned by International Produce Holding Company

(5) 98.6% owned by Bionova Holding Corporation

(6) Wholly-owned subsidiary of Agrobionova, S.A. de C.V.

(7) 98% owned by Agrobionova, S.A. de C.V.
OFFICE OF l-$fE AlTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

163 
Honorable F. A. 'Peylor, ~5g5 2 264 

O-752, 

3hl8 48p4U'twnt has horetoforcl h&4 in Opinion Ro5. 

and O-996 that the aoamttssionars~ aourt QA aouatiea 

oppratingun48r ths CkmralRoe&Lav of ths State oZFexe5, a5 

sat out in Tale tE9, Vol. 7, VamwL'a Alluotet54 civil stetuter, 

lm not 5mpov5red or authorfred to buy eutomobil55, piok-ups, oc 

truck5 for the 6ounty to be us54 by the mmJl58lonern In the 

parforwwe ot thsir 4uti55 as oaunty oomalsniom3m. 

In Cpinion Ho. O-2362, it vas held thet th5 ocmmi5- 

Bioa5r5' oourt or sxRAmt& colmty he4 no authority to pi?aheno 

and p5yfor tires en4 tub58 for PIL eutowbile oyzldd by a oounty 

oom5i56lon5r vhuh h6 ur54 ia ths oon4ucrt of aouuty busfners. 

oh Cpiniop Ho. 0-1918, it van halt3 that ths aomnira~one~s@ aomt 

OS Iklla5 County he4 no legal authority or paver to u55 the oounty fun48 tar paymat of sqmase8 -ed ln oonneotlon vlth 

5utoaobll88 driven by thy souaty oarmis8ioners. 

In au ophlorr 0S thl5 depwtmant &ted Augu8t 5, 1920, 

aa4 pubri5h84 at p. U4 of th5 Bienn.lal Report ror th6 year5 1918. 

1920, it via5 he14 that th5 ootmty oomm.ie5kme~5 are not euthorLx54 

to puroha~ en4 pay for gasollns OF other automobile 8uppllier and 

rubait their 6ladm5 thanfor to thiocsai55Loner5co' 5ourt fop audit 

an4 a3.Mv5aoe, an4 alaSan far such 'mpp&ies furnhhe4 for wuah 

pmpo555 an not legftSm8t5 ehaPge5 against ths county, vhsther 50 

pawha end p5i4 lar by ths oos55f5oton5rn or sol4 direct to tbs 

tmnty W the dealer. Thl5 oplnl.6n oite5 ths oa5en of Gnippa 83. 

Stavmt InmVork5, 66 S. Vi. 3321 &igby v. State, 10 8. V. 760; 

an4HaFa5vr,liaaon4, 203 8.W.~ #5. 

You stat5 -ia &r lott5r thst, 'th.le vehble ve8 us54 

b7 this 5aploy55 in th5 di56hargs oi hl5 4utie5 on the ma45 of 

ths mInty.* Thl8 belag true, it in our opinion, that the aounty 

auditor aan 15gally l ppxmve th5 abc+ve ulation* ala*. Provl454, 

hovovoe, t@ aolslPisrionsn~ ootwt ranted th5 plahrp or 15&ly 

authorl504 5ome.one to do so fas the purpow of said 55tploy55 

porfom.lng en4 4256harging hi5 duties oat, or ln aonn5ation vlth 

ths publto roa45 of the aounty. 

Trusting that ths rongoing fully ausvims your inuuby, 

ve era 

Youra verytmly 

ATTORHR’X GERRML OF TXJU
SAMPSON v. PILKINGTON NORTH AMERICA, INC.

No. COA07-353.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed January 15, 2008.

Certification Date February 4, 2008.

Appeal from NC Industrial Commission (I.C. 132597).

Case reported without published opinion. Appeal dismissed.
EXHIBIT 32.2

Certification 
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 
(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)

Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350,
Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), I, Roger G. Wilson, Chief Financial Officer,
Treasurer and Secretary of Microtek Medical Holdings, Inc., a Georgia corporation (the
Company), do hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that:

This
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2005 (the Form
10-Q) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in this Form 10-Q fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company.

|May 10, 2005 | /s/ Roger G. Wilson                                             
|------------ | ----------------------------------------------------------------
|             | Roger G. Wilson
Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Secretary