alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Commission Regulation (EU) No 825/2013Show full title

Commission Regulation (EU) No 825/2013 of 28 August 2013 establishing a prohibition of fishing for cod in areas I and IIb            by vessels flying the flag of Portugal         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Regulation (EU) No 825/2013                     

# of 28 August 2013

# establishing a prohibition of fishing for cod in areas I and IIb 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 40/2013 of 21 January 2013 fixing for 2013 the fishing opportunities available in EU waters and,                              to EU vessels, in certain non-EU waters for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks which are 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, 28 August 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. 54.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE J.B.
WILLIAMS HOLDINGS, INC. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED
SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           5,662
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,714
<ALLOWANCES>                                       340
<INVENTORY>                                     12,626
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                28,641
<PP&E>                                           2,300
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,298
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  77,555
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,998
<BONDS>                                         50,345
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         9,600
<OTHER-SE>                                       7,612
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    77,555
<SALES>                                         38,892
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                38,892
<CGS>                                           12,783
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   12,783
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                21,993
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,724
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,142
<INCOME-TAX>                                       445
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,142
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       697
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-3 Nos. 333-36450, 333-55456, 333-59746 and 333-65832) of Advanced
Aerodynamics & Structures, Inc. and in the related prospectus of our report
dated March 26, 2002, with respect to the financial statements included in the
Annual Report on Form 10-K of Advanced Aerodynamics & Structures, Inc. for the
year ended December 31, 2001.



/s/ Ernst & Young LLP


Long Beach, California
April 12, 2002
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                       1,533,042
<SECURITIES>                                19,795,176
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,012,885
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  3,626,806
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            26,265,448
<PP&E>                                       2,841,347
<DEPRECIATION>                               (754,538)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              28,548,644
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,120,964
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       109,081
<OTHER-SE>                                  25,318,599
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                28,548,644
<SALES>                                        841,705
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               841,705
<CGS>                                          406,243
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  406,243
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,468,503)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,468,503)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,468,503)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
# Political and Security Committee Decision EUFOR RCA/1/2014 (repealed)Show full title

Political and Security Committee Decision EUFOR RCA/1/2014 of 19 February 2014 on the appointment of the EU Force Commander            for the European Union military operation in the Central African Republic (EUFOR RCA) (2014/103/CFSP) (repealed)         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Political and Security Committee Decision EUFOR RCA/1/2014                     

# of 19 February 2014

# on the appointment of the EU Force Commander for the European Union military operation in the Central African Republic (EUFOR                        RCA)                     

# (2014/103/CFSP) (repealed)

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

Textual Amendments

F1Repealed by 2014/951/EU: Political and Security Committee Decision EUFOR RCA/6/2014 of 16 December 2014 on the appointment of the EU Force                                 Commander for the European Union military operation in the Central African Republic (EUFOR RCA) and repealing Decision EUFOR                                 RCA/1/2014.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-1124

BURTON ALFRED WARD,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

GEORGE KALOROUMAKIS; JAMES TAYLOR; GERALD

LONG; RAYMOND MONTGOMERY,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge.

(CA-96-1435-JFM)

Submitted: June 12, 1997 Decided: June 17, 1997

Before WIDENER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Burton Alfred Ward, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr.,

Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland; Susan Lynn Howe, Michael

O'Connor Doyle, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order denying Appellant's Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion. We have reviewed the record

and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. See

United States v. Williams, 674 F.2d 310, 312 (4th Cir. 1982). Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Ward

v. Kaloroumakis, No. CA-96-1435-JFM (D. Md. Jan. 10, 1997). 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.

AFFIRMED
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 80/2013Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 80/2013 of 28 January 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 80/2013                     

# of 28 January 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, 28 January 2013.

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

José Manuel Silva Rodríguez                            

*Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development*                            

## ANNEXU.K.Standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

1

OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.                           

2

OJ L 157, 15.6.2011, p. 1.
**THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS**

**Post Office Box 12248**

**Austin, Texas 78711**

**(512) 463-1312**

January 27, 2006

Mr. Michael Byrd

Jackson Walker, LLP

901 Main Street, Suite 6000

Dallas, TX 75202

Ms. Mary A. Keeney

Graves Dougherty Hearon & Moody, P.C.

401 Congress Avenue, Suite 2200

Austin, TX 78701-3587

Mr. Robert J. Hearon Jr.

Graves Dougherty Hearon & Moody, PC

401 Congress, Suite 2200

Austin, TX 78701

Ms. Elizabeth R. B. Sterling

Office of the Attorney General

P. O. Box 12548

Austin, TX 78711-2548

RE:Case Number:  03-0789

Court of Appeals Number:  03-02-00602-CV

Trial Court Number:  GN1-00469

Style:AT&T COMMUNICATIONS OF TEXAS, L.P.

v.

SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY AND SOUTHWESTERN BELL COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES, INC. D/B/A SOUTHWESTERN BELL LONG DISTANCE

Dear Counsel:

Today the Supreme Court of Texas delivered the enclosed opinion and judgment in the above-referenced causes.  

Sincerely,

Andrew Weber, Clerk

by Claudia Jenks, Chief Deputy Clerk

Enclosures

**Case No. 03-0789Page 2**
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997             SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           3,990                   2,658
<SECURITIES>                                     3,587                   1,647
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,863                   5,908
<ALLOWANCES>                                       343                     338
<INVENTORY>                                        547                     273
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                11,894                  10,444
<PP&E>                                           1,685                   1,832
<DEPRECIATION>                                     749                  (1,152)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  13,987                  12,478
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,038                   4,450
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                             8                       8
<OTHER-SE>                                      11,941                   8,019
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    13,987                  12,478
<SALES>                                          7,011                   9,642
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 7,011                   9,642
<CGS>                                            8,351                   8,851
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    8,351                   8,851
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 8,908                   5,166
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   220                     190
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 674                     341
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (9,574)                 (4,034)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       (66)                    (49)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (9,640)                 (4,083)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (9,640)                 (4,083)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (1.28)                  (0.53)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (1.28)                  (0.53)
        

</TABLE>
Barry Stephen SWAIN v. Dorlene Davenport SWAIN.

No. 590P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 27, 2007.

John M. Martin, Greenville, for Stephen Swain.

Jonathan Silverman, Sanford, for Dorlene Swain.

Prior report: 179 N.C.App. 795, 635 S.E.2d 504.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 20th day of November 2006 by Plaintiff in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following *898order 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."
BLO-MEDICAL v. NCDHHS.

No. 549A06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 8, 2007.

K. Edward Greene, Lee M. Whitman, Raleigh, Sarah M. Johnson, Winston-Salem, for Bio-Medical Applications.

Thomas R. West, Pamela A. Scott, William R. Shenton, Raleigh, Chad W. Essick, for Total Renal Care.

S. Todd Hemphill, Diana E. Ricketts, Raleigh, for Health Systems Management.

Susan K. Hackney, Amy Gray, Assistant Attorney Generals, for NCDHHS.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 1st day of February 2007 by Defendants (Total Renal Care and NCDHHS) and entitled Joint Motion for Leave to File Reply to Plaintiff's Response to Motions to Dismiss Appeal:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference this the 8th day of March 2007."
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                       5
<MULTIPLIER>                                    1000
       

<S>                                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  3-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 Jul-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   Sep-30-1997
<CASH>                                         10
<SECURITIES>                                   2,849,080
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0<F1>
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 2,849,626
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          0<F1>
<BONDS>                                        2,669,580
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       10
<OTHER-SE>                                     137,095
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   2,849,626
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               51,097
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               1,557
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               600
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             49,577
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (637)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (637)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (637)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
<FN>
<F1>                           The Company's balance sheet is unclassified.
</FN>

        


</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

**DANIEL R. NEDUCSIN,**

**Respondent**

**v.**

**SCOTT CAPLAN,**

**Petitioner :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 503 EAL 2015** 

**Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 3rd day of February, 2016, the Petition for A llowance of Appeal** 

**is** DENIED

**.**

**Mr. Justice Eakin did not participate in the consideration or decision of this** 

**matter.**
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 1**  **620**

WALTER LEE WHITAKER ,
P laintiff

- Appellant ,

v.

NASH

- ROCKY MOUNT BOARD OF EDUCATION, d/b/a Nash

- Rocky Mount Public Schools; ROBBIN BODDIE

- HAGGINS; VICTOR WARD , Defendants

- Appellee s .

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh

. Terrence W. Boyle , District Judge. ( 5 :1 4

- cv
- 0 0041

- BO )

Submitted : October 21, 2014 Decided: October 23, 2014

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Affirm ed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Walter Lee Whitaker , Appellant Pro Se. Dan M. Hartzog, Jr., CRANFILL, SUMNER & HARTZOG, LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina; Adam S. Mitchell, THARRINGTON SMITH LLP, Rale igh, North Carolina , for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Walter Lee Whitaker appeals the district court ’ s order denying his motion to amend his complaint and dismissing his
complaint for failing to state a claim . We have reviewed the
record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for
the reasons stated by the district court. Whitaker v. Nash

Rocky Mount Bd. of Educ. , No. 5:14

- cv
- 00041

- BO (E.D.N.C. June 3,
2014) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED