alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 908/2013Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 908/2013 of 20 September 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 908/2013                     

# of 20 September 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, 20 September 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.
Exhibit 32








CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(UNITED STATES CODE, TITLE 18, CHAPTER 63, SECTION 1350)


ACCOMPANYING ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K OF


CENTERLINE HOLDING COMPANY FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2010










In connection with the Annual Report of Centerline Holding Company (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert L. Levy, President, Chief Financial Officer and Chief Operating Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:







(1)      The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 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 our Company.










By:

/s/ Robert L. LevyRobert L. Levy

President, Chief Financial Officer and

Chief Operating Officer

(Principal Financial Officer and Principal Executive Officer)

March 30, 2011






A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Respondent

 v.

JAMAL IRVIN,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 190 EAL 2015

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 21st day of August, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED.
STATE v. Rogelio L. JUAREZ.

No. 567P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 27, 2007.

Derrick C. Mertz, Assistant Attorney General, G. Dewey Hudson, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*398The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 31st day of October 2006 by Defendant in Arrest of Judgment:

> "Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference this the 27th day of June 2007."
# Commission Implementing Decision of 27 March 2014 amending Annex II to Decision 2003/467/EC as regards the declaration of            Lithuania as officially brucellosis-free (notified under document C(2014) 1940) (Text with EEA relevance) (2014/177/EU)         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Decision

# of 27 March 2014

# amending Annex II to Decision 2003/467/EC as regards the declaration of Lithuania as officially brucellosis-free

# (notified under document C(2014) 1940)

# (Text with EEA relevance)

# (2014/177/EU)

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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

Having regard to Council Directive 64/432/EEC of 26 June 1964 on animal health problems affecting intra-Community trade in                           bovine animals and swine(1), and in particular point II.7 of Annex A thereto,                        

Whereas:

(1)Directive 64/432/EEC applies to trade within the Union in bovine animals and swine. It lays down the conditions whereby a                              Member State or region of a Member State may be declared officially brucellosis-free as regards bovine herds.

(2)Annex II to Commission Decision 2003/467/EC(2) lists the Member States and regions thereof which are declared officially brucellosis-free.

(3)Lithuania has submitted to the Commission documentation demonstrating compliance with the conditions for the officially brucellosis-free                              status laid down in Directive 64/432/EEC for its whole territory.

(4)Following evaluation of the documentation submitted by Lithuania, that Member-State should be declared officially brucellosis-free.

(5)Annex II to Decision 2003/467/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.

(6)The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain                              and Animal Health,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

# Article 1U.K.

Annex II to Decision 2003/467/EC is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Decision.

# Article 2U.K.

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 27 March 2014.

*For the Commission*                            

Tonio Borg                            

*Member of the Commission*                            

## ANNEXU.K.

In Annex II to Decision 2003/467/EC, Chapter 1 is replaced by the following:

### **‘CHAPTER 1**U.K.**Officially brucellosis-free Member States**

1

OJ 121, 29.7.1964, p. 1977/64.                           

2

Commission Decision 2003/467/EC of 23 June 2003 establishing the official tuberculosis, brucellosis and enzootic-bovine-leukosis-free                              status of certain Member States and regions of Member States as regards bovine herds (OJ L 156, 25.6.2003, p. 74).
STATE v. WILLIAMS.

No. COA07-290.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed September 4, 2007.

Certification Date September 24, 2007.

Appeal from Onslow (05CRS52577, 05CRS52578, 05CRS588736, 06CRS55647).

Case reported without published opinion No error in part, dismissed in part.
#### In the Matter of Vincent Greig, Appellant, v Debra Joy, as Director of Temporary Release Program, Respondent.

[799 NYS2d 343]

*616Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Connor, J.), entered September 27, 2004 in Columbia County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review two determinations of respondent denying petitioner’s request to participate in a temporary release program.

Petitioner, serving a sentence of four years for his conviction of attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge the denial of two applications requesting participation in a residence substance abuse temporary release program. Supreme Court dismissed the respective applications, prompting this appeal.

We affirm. We note at the outset that participation in temporary release programs is a privilege, not a right *(see People ex rel. Adler v Beaver,*12 AD3d 1136, 1136-1137 [2004]), and “our review is limited to determining whether the denial of the privilege ‘violated any positive statutory requirement or denied a constitutional right of the inmate and whether [it] is affected by irrationality bordering on impropriety’ ” *(Matter of Williams v Recore,*251 AD2d 833, 833-834 [1998], quoting *Matter of Gonzalez v Wilson,*106 AD2d 386, 386-387 [1984]). Applying this standard to the matter before us, we cannot say that Supreme Court erred in dismissing petitioner’s application seeking review of his January 26, 2004 request to participate in the subject program. The stated basis for such denial was petitioner’s extensive and at times violent criminal history, and based upon our review of the presentence investigation report, we cannot say that respondent’s decision to deny petitioner temporary release on this ground was irrational.

We reach a similar conclusion with regard to the denial of petitioner’s February 5, 2004 application. In order to be eligible for the sought-after temporary release program, petitioner had to have “a documented history of drug and/or alcohol abuse” (7 NYCRR 1950.3 [a] [2]) which, respondent found, petitioner did not possess. Again, respondent’s determination in this regard is not irrational. While petitioner apparently was under the influence of marihuana at the time of his most recent criminal offense and participated in an alcohol and substance abuse treatment program while incarcerated, such factors, standing alone, do not demonstrate a history of drug and/or alcohol abuse. Indeed, the presentence investigation report reflects that *617petitioner expressly denied a history of abuse, stating that he stopped using marihuana some 10 years earlier and consumed alcohol only occasionally. Under such circumstances, petitioner’s application was properly denied. Petitioner’s remaining contentions, to the extent not specifically addressed, have been examined and found to be lacking in merit.

Cardona, P.J., Crew III, Carpinello, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
STATE v. REYES

No. COA06-1022

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Filed May 1, 2007

Certification Date May 21, 2007

Appeal from Montgomery (02CRS52506).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 903/2013Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 903/2013 of 19 September 2013 on the issue of import licences for applications            lodged during the first seven days of September 2013 under the tariff quota opened by Regulation (EC) No 1385/2007 for poultrymeat         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 903/2013                     

# of 19 September 2013

# on the issue of import licences for applications lodged during the first seven days of September 2013 under the tariff quota                        opened by Regulation (EC) No 1385/2007 for poultrymeat                     

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 Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration                           of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences(2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,                        

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1385/2007 of 26 November 2007 laying down detailed rules for the application                           of Council Regulation (EC) No 774/94 as regards opening and providing for the administration of certain Community tariff quotas                           for poultrymeat(3), and in particular Article 5(6) thereof,                        

Whereas:

The applications for import licences lodged during the first seven days of September 2013 for the subperiod from 1 October                           to 31 December 2013 relate, for some quotas, to quantities exceeding those available. The extent to which import licences                           may be issued should therefore be determined by establishing the allocation coefficient to be applied to the quantities requested,                        

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

The quantities for which import licence applications have been lodged for the subperiod from 1 October to 31 December 2013                     under Regulation (EC) No 1385/2007 shall be multiplied by the allocation coefficients set out in the Annex hereto.                  

# Article 2U.K.

This Regulation shall enter into force on 20 September 2013.

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

Done at Brussels, 19 September 2013.

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

Jerzy Plewa                            

*Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development*                            

## ANNEXU.K.

1

OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.                           

2

OJ L 238, 1.9.2006, p. 13.                           

3

OJ L 309, 27.11.2007, p. 47.
WATERS v. WILSON.

No. COA06-1702.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed December 4, 2007.

Certification Date December 27, 2007.

Appeal from Alamance (05CVS1091).

Case reported without published opinion. Reversed.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA 

FIFTH DISTRICT 

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING 

AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF 

FILED 

JAMAAR JULIUS KING,

Appellant,

v. Case No. 5D21-1365 

LT Case No. 2013-CF-392-O

STATE OF FLORIDA, 

Appellee. 

________________________________/ 

Decision filed August 9, 2022 

3.850 Appeal from the Circuit Court 

for Osceola County, 

Keith A. Carsten, Judge. 

Jamaar J. King, Arcadia, pro se. 

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Rebecca Rock 

McGuigan, Assistant Attorney General, 

Daytona Beach, for Appellee. 

PER CURIAM. 

AFFIRMED.

LAMBERT, C.J., EVANDER and HARRIS, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 10.18

Summary of compensation for named executive officers  February 2008

In February 2008, the Compensation Committee of the
Board of Directors established 2008 salary and target bonus applicable to the Companys Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, and the other current executive officers as follows:



|                  |  |                  |         |                   |   |        
|----------------- |  | ---------------- | ------- | ----------------- | - | -------
|Named Executive   |  | 2008 Base Salary |         | 2008 Target Bonus
|Arthur G. Dauber  |  | $                | 240,000 |                   | $ | 100,000
|John H. Untereker |  | $                | 168,400 |                   | $ | 80,000 
|Neal T. Hare      |  | $                | 176,400 |                   | $ | 80,000 
|James J. Steffek  |  | $                | 176,400 |                   | $ | 80,000 
|Charles M. Dauber |  | $                | 165,000 |                   | $ | 75,000 
|Joseph F. McGuire |  | $                | 127,500 |                   | $ | 20,000 
|Timothy C. Adams  |  | $                | 150,000 |                   | $ | 30,000 

Actual bonus amounts payable to each executive will be based on the achievement of company and
individual performance goals established for each executive. Targeted performance must be achieved at the 75% level for that component of the bonus to be earned and must be achieved at the 100% level for the full bonus to be earned. Some of each
executives individual goals may require a subjective evaluation and judgment with respect to achievement of these goals. Company performance targets range from 50% to 75% of total bonus with individual goals encompassing the remainder. After
the completion of the 2008 fiscal year, the Chief Executive Officer will review each executives performance against 2008 company and individual performance goals. Based on this assessment, the CEO will then recommend to the Compensation
Committee what percentage of each executives target bonus the executive should receive. The Compensation Committee, without the CEOs participation, will evaluate the CEOs performance (and determines his bonus) by reviewing the
CEOs success in achieving the company and personal performance goals established by the committee in 2008.

The executives have also
received grants of stock options and restricted stock units under the 2007 Employee Stock Incentive Plan and are eligible to receive employee benefits generally available to all employees of the Company.

Messrs. Untereker, Charles M. Dauber, and Adams have employment agreements with the company. The other executives are at will employees.
STATE of North Carolina v. Joe D. BARFIELD.

No. 225P06-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 5, 2006.

Joe D. Barfield, Pro Se.

Anne M. Middleton, Assistant Attorney General, C. Branson Vickory, III, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*812*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 28th day of August 2006 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th day of October 2006."
STATE v. BROWN.

No. COA06-1194.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed July 17, 2007.

Certification Date August 6, 2007.

Appeal from Robeson (04CRS56238).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
Mary Nicole Boone VOGLER, Widow; Marilyn "Sue Ann" Clymer, Guardian Ad Litem for Kristin Dakota Vogler, Minor Child; and Mark Boone, Guardian Ad Litem for Megan Nicole Boone, Minor Stepchild; of Billy Charles Vogler, Deceased Employee, Plaintiffs v. BRANCH ERECTIONS CO., INC., Employer-Defendant; Reliance National Insurance Company (now insolvent), Carrier-Defendant North Carolina Insurance Guaranty Association, Defendant Cambridge Integrated Serv., Third-Party Administrator Sterling Administrative Services and the Goff Group, Servicing Agents.

No. 128A07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina, Tenth District.

June 27, 2007.

Joseph W. Eason, Christopher J. Blake, Leslie Lane Mize, Raleigh, for NC Ins. Guaranty Asso.

J. Randolph Ward, Cary, for Branch Erections Co.

Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ___, 640 S.E.2d 419.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition for discretionary review, filed by Defendant (Branch Erections Co., Inc.) on the 13th day of March 2007 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 and the Appellate Rule 16(b) as to issues in addition to those presented as the basis for the dissenting opinion in the Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the petition for discretionary review as to additional issues is *899"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 27th day of June 2007."

Accordingly, the new brief of the Defendant (Branch Erections Co., Inc.) shall be filed with this Court not more than 30 days from the date of certification of this order.

Defendant (Branch Erections Co., Inc.) shall forthwith submit an appeal bond to this Court, as provided by Appellate Rule 17(b). The bond may be in cash or by a written undertaking with good and sufficient surety in the sum of $250.00.
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3180 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 24, 2008 

Referred to the Committee on Education and Labor 

AN ACT 

To temporarily extend the programs under the Higher 

Education Act of 1965. 

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


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

S 3180 RFH 

1 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF HIGHER EDUCATION PRO2 GRAMS. 

3 (a) EXTENSION OF PROGRAMS.—Section 2(a) of the 

4 Higher Education Extension Act of 2005 (Public Law 

5 109–81; 20 U.S.C. 1001 note) is amended by striking 

6 ‘‘June 30, 2008’’ and inserting ‘‘July 31, 2008’’. 

7 (b) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this sec8 tion, or in the Higher Education Extension Act of 2005 

9 as amended by this Act, shall be construed to limit or oth10 erwise alter the authorizations of appropriations for, or 

11 the durations of, programs contained in the amendments 

12 made by the Higher Education Reconciliation Act of 2005 

13 (Public Law 109–171), by the College Cost Reduction and 

14 Access Act (Public Law 110–84), or by the Ensuring Con15 tinued Access to Student Loans Act of 2008 (Public Law 

16 110–227) to the provisions of the Higher Education Act 

17 of 1965 and the Taxpayer-Teacher Protection Act of 

18 2004. 

Passed the Senate June 23, 2008. 

Attest: NANCY ERICKSON, 

Secretary. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS