alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1349/2013Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1349/2013 of 16 December 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 1349/2013                     

# of 16 December 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, 16 December 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.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 307 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 307

 To establish a minimum rate of release for water from the Yellowtail 
                             Dam, Montana.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 16, 2007

Mr. Baucus (for himself and Mr. Tester) introduced the following bill; 
   which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To establish a minimum rate of release for water from the Yellowtail 
                             Dam, Montana.

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

SECTION 1. YELLOWTAIL DAM, MONTANA.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law and 
except as provided in subsection (b), the preferred rate of release of 
water from Yellowtail Dam, located in Big Horn County, Montana, shall 
be not less than 2,500 cubic feet of water per second, with a minimum 
rate of release of 1,500 cubic feet of water per second.
    (b) Exceptions.--The minimum rate of release established under 
subsection (a) may be waived by the Secretary of the Interior, acting 
through the Commissioner of Reclamation (referred to in this Act as the 
``Secretary'')--
            (1) in the event of an emergency, as determined by the 
        Secretary; or
            (2) if, for any reason, water levels in Bighorn Lake 
        imminently preclude power generation at Yellowtail Dam, as 
        determined by the Secretary.
    (c) Purpose.--The purposes for which the Yellowtail Unit of the 
Pick-Sloan Missouri River Basin Program (authorized by section 9 of the 
Act of December 22, 1944 (commonly known as the ``Flood Control Act of 
1944'') (58 Stat. 891)) is authorized shall include the maintenance of 
a healthy fishery on the portion of the Bighorn River, Montana, that is 
located downstream from the Yellowtail Dam.
    (d) Coordination.--The Secretary shall ensure that any reclamation 
project carried out within the Bighorn River watershed shall be 
coordinated with other Reclamation projects within the watershed, 
including any projects overseen by the Montana Area Office or Wyoming 
Area Office of the Bureau of Reclamation.
                                 <all>
```
STATE v. CARTER.

No. COA07-324.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed September 4, 2007.

Certification Date September 24, 2007.

Appeal from Forsyth (05CRS60865).

Case reported without published opinion No error.
STATE of North Carolina v. Larry Donnell JONES.

No. 265P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 27, 2007.

Kevin P. Bradley, Durham, for Jones.

Amy Kunstling, Assistant Attorney General, C. Branson Vickory, III, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 5th day of June 2007 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 27th day of June 2007."
Exhibit 23.1





CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





We hereby consent to the incorporation of our report dated March 23, 2010 relating to our audit of the consolidated financial statements, the financial statement schedules and internal control over financial reporting included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, into the Company’s previously filed registration statements on Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-134606, 333-123698, 333-61953, 333-92875 and 333-92877) and Form S-3 (File No. 333-134603).














Hein & Associates LLP


Houston, Texas





March 23, 2010
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

ASHLEE J. STRAKER,

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

§ 

No. 08-14-00111-CR

Appeal from the

Criminal District Court No. 3

of Tarrant County, Texas 

(TC# 1310222D) 

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the 

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. This decision shall be certified 

below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2016.

STEVEN L. HUGHES, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 360/2013 (repealed)Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 360/2013 of 18 April 2013 fixing the export refunds on poultrymeat (repealed)

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 360/2013                     

# of 18 April 2013

# fixing the export refunds on poultrymeat (repealed)

F1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                        

Textual Amendments

F1Repealed by Council Regulation (EU) 2018/1277 of 18 September 2018 on fixing the export refunds on poultrymeat.
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 95/2013 (repealed)Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 95/2013 of 1 February 2013 concerning the authorisation of a preparation of Pediococcus            acidilactici CNCM MA 18/5M as a feed additive for all fish other than salmonids (holder of authorisation Danstar Ferment AG)            (Text with EEA relevance) (repealed)         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 95/2013                     

# of 1 February 2013

# concerning the authorisation of a preparation of *Pediococcus acidilactici* CNCM MA 18/5M as a feed additive for all fish other than salmonids (holder of authorisation Danstar Ferment AG)                     

# (Text with EEA relevance) (repealed)

F1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                        

Textual Amendments

F1Repealed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/151 of 4 February 2020 concerning the authorisation of Pediococcus acidilactici                                 CNCM I-4622 as a feed additive for all porcine species for fattening and for breeding other than sows, all avian species,                                 all fish species and all crustaceans and repealing Regulations (EC) No 911/2009, (EU) No 1120/2010 and (EU) No 212/2011 and                                 Implementing Regulations (EU) No 95/2013, (EU) No 413/2013 and (EU) 2017/2299 (holder of authorisation Danstar Ferment AG                                 represented in the Union by Lallemand SAS) (Text with EEA relevance).
STATE v. Anh Viet THAI.

No. 7PA06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

February 23, 2007.

Q. Shante Martin, Assistant Attorney General, Peter S. Gilchrist, III, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*594The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 23rd day of February 2007 by Defendant for Extension of Time to File Brief:

"Motion Allowed. Defendant (Anh Viet Thai) shall have up to and including the 2nd day of March 2007 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court. By order of the Court in conference this the 23rd day of February 2007."

Justice HUDSON recused.
#### Ronald Robertson et al., Respondents-Appellants, v Anthony M. Masiello et al., Appellants-Respondents.

[801 NYS2d 871]

Appeal and cross appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Eugene M. Fahey, J.), entered January 11, 2005 in a personal injury action. The order, among other things, granted that part of defendants’ motion seeking summary judgment *1260dismissing the complaint to the extent that plaintiffs allege that they had actual notice of the allegedly dangerous condition on their property.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiffs commenced this action to recover damages for injuries sustained by Ronald Robertson (plaintiff) when he slipped and fell outside the entrance to defendants’ residence. According to plaintiffs, defendants were negligent in allowing ice to accumulate in the area where plaintiff fell and they had both actual and constructive notice of the dangerous condition. We agree with defendants that Supreme Court properly granted that part of their motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint to the extent that plaintiffs allege that they had actual notice of the allegedly dangerous condition. Defendants met their initial burden with respect to actual notice by submitting evidence establishing that they were away on vacation at the time of the accident and were not aware of the allegedly dangerous condition, and plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact *(see Smith v Smith,*289 AD2d 919, 920 [2001]). We agree with plaintiffs, however, that the court properly denied that part of defendants’ motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint to the extent that plaintiffs allege that defendant had constructive notice of the allegedly dangerous condition. Defendants were not relieved of their duty to maintain their property in a reasonably safe condition and “to protect against a condition reasonably to be foreseen” while they were away on vacation *(Farrell v Prentice,*206 AD2d 799, 800 [1994]). Further, the opinion of defendants’ expert meteorologist that the weather conditions did not favor the formation of ice does not conclusively refute the testimony of plaintiff and his coworker that the area in which the accident occurred was icy *(see Sweeney v Lopez,*16 AD3d 1174, 1175 [2005]; *see also Jordan v Musinger,*197 AD2d 889 [1993]). Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Hurlbutt, Kehoe and Pine, JJ.
#### Arnold Marshel, Appellant, v Thomas F. Farley et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

[800 NYS2d 760]

In an action to recover damages for fraud and breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Warshawsky, J.), dated September 17, 2003, as granted the motion of the defendant Thomas F. Farley to dismiss the complaint *936insofar as asserted against him, and as granted that branch of the separate motion of the defendants Dennis Pilotti, Dennis Pilotti, Jr., Tracy J. Kelly, Paragon Resorts, Inc., East Coast Athletic Club, Inc. and Peak Health Club, Inc., which was to dismiss the cause of action alleging fraud insofar as asserted against the defendants Dennis Pilotti, Dennis Pilotti, Jr., Tracy J. Kelly and Paragon Resorts, Inc.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.

Since no cause of action to recover damages for fraud will arise when the only fraud charged relates to a breach of contract, the Supreme Court correctly dismissed the cause of action alleging fraud insofar as asserted against the respondents *(see Guerrera v Foundation Tit. & Escrow Corp.,*303 AD2d 456 [2003]; *Crowley Mar. Assoc. v Nyconn Assoc.,*292 AD2d 334 [2002]; *Weitz v Smith,*231 AD2d 518, 519 [1996]; *Courageous Syndicate v People-to-People Sports Comm.,*141 AD2d 599, 600 [1988]; *Jackson Hgts. Med. Group v Complex Corp.,*222 AD2d 409 [1995]). Moreover, “ ‘[u]nder ordinary circumstances, an attorney who does not represent a party may only be held liable to that party upon a showing of fraud or collusion, or a malicious or tortious act’ ” *(Nihalani v Tekhomes, Inc.,*177 AD2d 484 [1991], quoting *Krasne v Gedell,*147 AD2d 616, 618 [1989]). Since there was no showing in this case that the attorney Thomas E Farley acted fraudulently, collusively, maliciously, or tortiously in advising his clients, who allegedly broke their contract with the plaintiff, the Supreme Court properly dismissed the complaint insofar as asserted against the attorney. Adams, J.P., Krausman, Spolzino and Fisher, JJ, concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6779

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JEFFREY MAYO,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CR-93-228-

L, CA-96-414-L)

Submitted: December 19, 1996 Decided: January 3, 1997

Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jeffrey Mayo, Appellant Pro Se. Lynne Ann Battaglia, United States

Attorney, Thomas Michael DiBiagio, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES

ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-

132, 110 Stat. 1214. We have reviewed the record and the district

court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Mayo, Nos. CR-93-

228-L; CA-96-414-L (D. Md. May 3, 1996). 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
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1098/2013Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1098/2013 of 4 November 2013 entering a name in the register of protected designations            of origin and protected geographical indications [Gâche vendéenne (PGI)]         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1098/2013                     

# of 4 November 2013

# entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Gâche vendéenne                        (PGI)]                     

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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

Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality                           schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs(1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, France’s application to register the name ‘Gâche vendéenne’                              was published in the *Official Journal of the European Union* (2).

(2)As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name                              ‘Gâche vendéenne’ should therefore be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

The name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.

# Article 2U.K.

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*.                  

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 4 November 2013.

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

Dacian Cioloș                            

*Member of the Commission*                            

## ANNEXU.K.

Agricultural products and foodstuffs listed in Annex I(I) to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012:

### **Class 2.4.****Bread, pastry, cakes, confectionery, biscuits and other baker’s wares**U.K.

#### FRANCEU.K.

Gâche vendéenne (PGI)

1

OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.                           

2

OJ C 68, 8.3.2013, p. 48.
# Commission Regulation (EU) No 950/2013Show full title

Commission Regulation (EU) No 950/2013 of 2 October 2013 establishing a prohibition of fishing for Norway lobster in IX and            X; EU waters of CECAF 34.1.1 by vessels flying the flag of Portugal         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Regulation (EU) No 950/2013                     

# of 2 October 2013

# establishing a prohibition of fishing for Norway lobster in IX and X; EU waters of CECAF 34.1.1 by vessels flying the flag                        of Portugal                     

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.