alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 477/2013Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 477/2013 of 23 May 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 477/2013                     

# of 23 May 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, 23 May 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.
Harris Emanuel FORD v. Marvin L. POLK, Warden, State of North Carolina.

No. 104P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

February 27, 2007.

Harris E. Ford, Pro Se.

Kathleen U. Baldwin, Assistant Attorney General, for Polk, et al.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the application filed by Plaintiff on the 23rd day of February 2007 in this matter for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Robeson County:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 27th day of February 2007."

Justice HUDSON recused.
STATE v. QUINLAN

No. COA06-1474.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed June 19, 2007

Certification Date July 9, 2007.

Appeal from Wilson (03CRS56886).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1196/2013Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1196/2013 of 22 November 2013 entering a name in the register of protected designations            of origin and protected geographical indications [Stakliškės (PGI)]         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1196/2013                     

# of 22 November 2013

# entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Stakliškės (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, Lithuania’s application to register the name ‘Stakliškės’ 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, that name                              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, 22 November 2013.

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

Dacian Cioloș                            

*Member of the Commission*                            

## ANNEXU.K.

Agricultural products intended for human consumption listed in Annex I to the Treaty:

### **Class 1.8.****Other products listed in Annex I to the Treaty (spices, etc.)**U.K.

#### LITHUANIAU.K.

Stakliškės (PGI)

1

OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.                           

2

OJ C 166, 12.6.2013, p. 8.
___________

No. 95-3891

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the 

v. * District of Minnesota.

*

Donald Lee Miller, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: June 11, 1996

 Filed: August 15, 1996

___________

Before BOWMAN, LAY, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Donald Lee Miller was convicted of a marijuana

trafficking offense. Three days later, the government filed civil

forfeiture complaints against real property owned by Miller,

alleging that the properties in question were forfeitable as

criminal proceeds derived from Miller's drug trafficking activity.

Approximately a year later, the government's motion for summary

judgment in the forfeiture action was granted. Miller's conviction

and 150-month sentence having been affirmed on direct appeal, see

United States v. Miller, 995 F.2d 865 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 510

U.S. 1018 (1993), Miller filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994) motion,

contending that he has been punished twice for the same offense, in

violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause, by his criminal conviction

on the marijuana charge and the civil forfeiture of his property.

The District Court rejected this contention, and Miller appeals.
-2-

Miller's argument is foreclosed by the decision of this Court

in United States v. Clementi, 70 F.3d 997 (8th Cir. 1995) (holding

that forfeiture of fruits of criminal activity is not punishment

for purposes of double jeopardy analysis), and by the decision of

the Supreme Court in United States v. Ursery, 116 S. Ct. 2135, 2149

(1996) (holding that in rem civil forfeitures are neither

punishment nor criminal for purposes of the Double Jeopardy

Clause). Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is

affirmed.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
STATE of North Carolina v. Harris Emanuel FORD.

No. 539P03-3.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 3, 2005.

Harris Emanuel Ford, Pro Se.

Staples S. Hughes, Appellate Defender, for Harris Emanuel Ford.

Kathleen U. Baldwin, Assistant Attorney General, L. Johnson Britt, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 28th day of September 2005 for Writ of Supersedeas of the judgment of the 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 3rd day of November 2005."
<PAGE>
                                                                  EXHIBIT 19.2

                     FORM OF CONVERTIBLE PREFERRED CERTIFICATE




                               PRIME GROUP REALTY TRUST


                 ORGANIZED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND



THIS CERTIFIES THAT _________________________________________

IS THE OWNER OF  ____________________________________________

fully paid and non-assessable Series A Cumulative Convertible Preferred
Shares of Beneficial Interest, $0.01 par value per share, of Prime Group
Realty Trust, transferable only on the books of the Trust by the holder
hereof in person or by duly authorized attorney upon the surrender of this
Certificate property endorsed.  This Certificate and the Series A Cumulative
Convertible Preferred Shares of Beneficial Interest evidenced hereby are
issued and shall be held subject to all of the provisions of the Declaration
of Trust and amendments thereto.  The holder hereof has no interest, legal or
equitable, in any specific property of the Trust.

          WITNESS the signatures of its duly authorized officers.

Dated:

_____________________________
CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD

_____________________________
PRESIDENT

_____________________________
EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT,
GENERAL COUNSEL AND SECRETARY

<PAGE>

                              [REVERSE OF CERTIFICATE]

                              PRIME GROUP REALTY TRUST

          THE TRUST IS AUTHORIZED TO ISSUE MORE THAN ONE CLASS OF STOCK.  THE
DECLARATION OF TRUST ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF
ASSESSMENTS AND TAXATION OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND SETS FORTH A FULL STATEMENT
OF (A) ALL OF THE DESIGNATIONS, PREFERENCES, RIGHTS, VOTING POWERS,
RESTRICTIONS, LIMITATIONS AS TO DIVIDENDS, QUALIFICATIONS, AND TERMS AND
CONDITIONS OF REDEMPTIONS, AND OTHER RELATIVE RIGHTS OF THE SHARES OF EACH
CLASS OF SHARES AUTHORIZED TO BE ISSUED AND (B) THE AUTHORITY OF THE BOARD OF
TRUSTEES TO ISSUE ANY PREFERRED OR SPECIAL CLASS IN SERIES, THE DIFFERENCES
IN THE RELATIVE RIGHTS AND PREFERENCES BETWEEN THE SHARES OF EACH SERIES TO
THE EXTENT THEY HAVE BEEN SET AND THE AUTHORITY OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES TO
SET THE RELATIVE RIGHTS AND PREFERENCES OF SUBSEQUENT SERIES OF PREFERRED
SHARES.
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
accompanying balance sheets of ORPHAN MEDICAL, INC. as of June 30, 1999 and the
related statements of operations for the six months ended June 30, 1999 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                       3,225,717
<SECURITIES>                                   997,550
<RECEIVABLES>                                  631,719
<ALLOWANCES>                                   100,983
<INVENTORY>                                    252,275
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,078,159
<PP&E>                                         588,292
<DEPRECIATION>                                 309,365
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,357,086
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,746,439
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         78
<COMMON>                                        65,692
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,544,877
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,357,086
<SALES>                                      2,926,298
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,926,298
<CGS>                                          526,330
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  526,330
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             5,571,822
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           (147,282)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,024,572)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,024,572)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,312,634)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.50)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.50)



</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 23.2

Consent of Independent Auditors

The
Board of Directors
Star Buffet, Inc.:

We
consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No. 333-46939 and 333-50767) on Form S-8 of Star Buffet, Inc. of our
report dated April 5, 2002 except Note 2 of the financial statements for which the date is April 18, 2002 and except for Note 15 for which the date is April 29,
2002, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Star Buffet, Inc. and subsidiaries as of January 28, 2002, and the related consolidated statements of income, stockholders' equity,
and cash flows for the 52-week period ended January 28, 2002, which report appears in the January 28, 2002, annual report on Form 10-K of Star
Buffet, Inc.

/s/
Grant Thornton LLP

Salt
Lake City, Utah
April 5, 2002



QuickLinks
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11**  **- 4099** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. DERRICK ANTWAN DINGLE , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Easte rn District of North Carolina , at New Bern
. Louise W. Flanagan , Chief District Judge. ( 5:10

- cr - 00209

- FL

- 2 )

Submitted : November 22, 2011 Decided: December 6, 2011

Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge
.

Af firmed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Thomas R. Wilson, GREENE & WILSON, P.A., New Bern, North Carolina, for Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May

- Parker, J. Gaston B. Williams, Assistant United States Attorneys, Rale igh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Derrick Antwan Dingle pled guilty, without a written plea agreement, to possessing a firearm after having been convicted of a felony and aid ing and abetting his father, Bobby Batts, in the same crime. 18 U.S.C. § § 2 , 922(g)(1) (2006). Dingle challenges his sixty

- three

- month sentence on appeal, arguing the district court lacked a sufficient evidentiary basis for his sentencing enhancements. We affirm. This c ourt reviews the district court’s factual findings regarding a sentencing enhancement for clear error and the legal interpretations of the Guidelines de novo. United
States v. Carter , 601 F.3d 252, 254 (4th Cir. 2010). We will “find cl ear error only if, on the entire evidence, we are left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v. Manigan , 592 F. 3 d 621, 631 (4th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted). Finally, we gi ve “great deference” to the district court’s credibility determinations. United States v. Layton , 564 F.3d 330, 334 (4th Cir. 2009). We have carefully reviewed the evidence presented during the sentencing hearing and conclude the Government bore its bur den to prove by a preponderance of the evidence the facts supporting the enhancement s for possession of a firearm in connection with another felony offense and the presence of a3 vulnerable victim. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual
§ § 2K2.1(b)(6), 3A1. 1(b)(1) (2010) . We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. 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.
AFFIRM ED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                      5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Company's Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended February 29, 2000 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                      MAY-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                         DEC-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                           FEB-29-2000
<CASH>                                                  15,359,193
<SECURITIES>                                               208,206
<RECEIVABLES>                                            1,449,769
<ALLOWANCES>                                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                        17,183,438
<PP&E>                                                   3,090,617
<DEPRECIATION>                                           1,693,897
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                          18,893,079
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                    1,538,366
<BONDS>                                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                            0
<PREFERRED>                                                     33
<COMMON>                                                   250,282
<OTHER-SE>                                               8,301,499
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                            18,893,079
<SALES>                                                          0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                           542,643
<CGS>                                                    1,094,120
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            3,640,884
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                            38,197
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                          (1,021)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                         (3,068,613)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                              0
<DISCONTINUED>                                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           (221,929)
<CHANGES>                                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                            (3,290,542)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                (0.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                (0.15)


</TABLE>
Katelyn ANDREWS, a minor, through her Guardian ad Litem, David Andrews and David Andrews and Andrea Andrews, Individually v. Vanessa P. HAYGOOD, J.D., Individually, and Central Carolina Obstetrics and Gynecology, P.A., a North Carolina Corporation, the Women's Hospital of Greensboro, a North Carolina Not for Profit Corporation and Kim Richey, RN, Individually, and Jennifer Daley, Individually v. North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, Division of Medical Assistance appealed by Charlie D. Brown, Trustee of Katelyn Andrews Segregated Settlement Account.

No. 57P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 27, 2007.

Pamela S. Duffy, Molly A. Orndorff, Burlington, for Charlie D. Brown.

Susannah P. Holloway, Assistant Attorney General, for NCDHHS.

Timothy P. Lehan, Robert M. Clay, Raleigh, for Haygood, et al.

Brent Stephens, Durham, for Andrews, et al.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Petitioner (Charlie D. Brown, Trustee) on the 31st day of January 2007 in this matter for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 prior to a determination by the North Carolina Court of Appeals, 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."
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 395/2013Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 395/2013 of 29 April 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 395/2013                     

# of 29 April 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, 29 April 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.