alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Commission Regulation (EU) No 937/2014Show full title

Commission Regulation (EU) No 937/2014 of 22 August 2014 establishing a prohibition of fishing for common sole in areas VIIf            and VIIg by vessels flying the flag of Ireland         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Regulation (EU) No 937/2014                     

# of 22 August 2014

# establishing a prohibition of fishing for common sole in areas VIIf and VIIg by vessels flying the flag of Ireland

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 43/2014(2), lays down quotas for 2014.

(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                              2014.

(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 2014 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, 22 August 2014.

*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

Council Regulation (EU) No 43/2014 of 20 January 2014 fixing for 2014 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and                              groups of fish stocks, applicable in Union waters and, to Union vessels, in certain non-Union waters (OJ L 24, 28.1.2014, p. 1).
STATE v. Kenneth Wayne MAREADY.

No. 32A08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 24, 2008.

Daniel R. Pollitt, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Maready.

Michael Nifong, District Attorney, for State.

Prior report: ___ N.C.App, ___, 654 S.E.2d 769.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 24th day of January 2008 by State of NC for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference this the 24th day of January 2008."
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 32

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with the Annual Report of Allergy Research Group, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2007 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Dr. Stephen A. Levine, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to
ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

               (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 the
Company.


Dated:  March 31, 2008


                             By:  /s/ Stephen A. Levine
                             ---------------------------------------------------
                             Dr. Stephen A. Levine
                             Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to Allergy Research Group, Inc. and
will be retained by Allergy Research Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 23.1



                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS



We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of our report on OraLabs
Holding Corp. dated March 9, 2002 in the two Registration Statements on Form S-8
(originally filed in July 1997 and January 2002, respectively) as included in
the OraLabs Holding Corp.'s Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2001,
and to all references to our firm included in such Registration Statements



                                        /s/  Ehrhardt Keefe Steiner & Hottman PC
                                             -----------------------------------
                                             Ehrhardt Keefe Steiner & Hottman PC



April 12, 2002
Denver, Colorado
# Commission Regulation (EU) No 1075/2014Show full title

Commission Regulation (EU) No 1075/2014 of 10 October 2014 establishing a prohibition of fishing for skates and rays in Union            waters of VIII and IX by vessels flying the flag of Belgium         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Regulation (EU) No 1075/2014                     

# of 10 October 2014

# establishing a prohibition of fishing for skates and rays in Union waters of VIII and IX by vessels flying the flag of Belgium

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 43/2014(2), lays down quotas for 2014.

(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                              2014.

(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 2014 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, 10 October 2014.

*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

Council Regulation (EU) No 43/2014 of 20 January 2014 fixing for 2014 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and                              groups of fish stocks, applicable in Union waters and, to Union vessels, in certain non-Union waters (OJ L 24, 28.1.2014, p. 1).
STATE v. METCALF.

No. COA07-1228.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed May 20, 2008.

Certification Date June 9, 2008.

Appeal from Davidson (01CRS55736, 01CRS55737, 99CRS10290, 00CRS2113, 00CRS11490, 00CRS53700, 01CRS55733).

Cases reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
STATE of North Carolina v. Alfonza Dawnta COLTRANE aka Alfenza Dawnta Colterane aka Alfonz Dwante Coltrane.

No. 99P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 26, 2008.

Anne Bleyman, Chapel Hill, for Alfonza Dawnta Coltrane.

John Barkley, Assistant Attorney General, Garland N. Yates, District Attorney, for State of NC.

Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ___, 650 S.E.2d 322.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by Defendant on the 8th day of March 2008 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30 (substantial constitutional question), the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the notice of appeal is

"Dismissed ex mero motu by order of the Court in conference, this the 26th day of August 2008."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 8th day of March 2008 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals *761pursuant 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 26th day of August 2008."
Katelyn ANDREWS, a minor, through her Guardian ad Litem, David ANDREWS and David Andrews and Andrea Andrews, Individually v. Vanessa P. HAYGOOD, M.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. 57A07-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 10, 2008.

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

Susannah Holloway, for NCDHHS.

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

*239Brent Stephens, Durham, for Andrews, et al.

Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ___, 655 S.E.2d 440.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition for discretionary review, filed by Appellant (Charlie Brown, Trustee) on the 13th day of February 2008 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

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 10th day of April 2008."

Accordingly, the new brief of the Other shall be filed with this Court not more than 30 days from the date of certification of this order.
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 IV Regulatory Fairness Board and the SBA Office of the National Ombudsman will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, September 20, 2005 at 9 a.m. The meeting will take place at the Charlotte Chamber of Commerce, Belk Action Center, 330 South Tryon Street, Charlotte, NC, 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 Eileen Joyce in writing or by fax, in order to be put on the agenda. Eileen Joyce, Lead Business Development Specialist, SBA, North Carolina District Office, 6302 Fairview Road, #300, Charlotte, NC 28210, phone (704) 344-6787 Extension 1136; fax (704) 344-6769, e-mail:                     *Eileen.joyce@sba.gov*

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

Matthew K. Becker,

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 05-17111 Filed 8-26-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8025-01-M
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 370 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 370

 To designate the headquarters building of the Department of Education 
   in Washington, DC, as the Lyndon Baines Johnson Federal Building.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 23, 2007

 Mrs. Hutchison (for herself and Mr. Cornyn) introduced the following 
bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment 
                            and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the headquarters building of the Department of Education 
   in Washington, DC, as the Lyndon Baines Johnson Federal Building.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The headquarters building of the Department of Education located at 
400 Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, DC, shall be known and designated 
as the ``Lyndon Baines Johnson Federal Building''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the building referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Lyndon Baines Johnson 
Federal Building''.
                                 <all>
```
STATE of North Carolina v. Timothy S. MARTIN.

No. 252P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 6, 2008.

Timothy Martin, S., Pro Se.

Chris Z. Sinha, Assistant Attorney General, Peter S. Gilchrist, III, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 29th day of May 2007 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Mecklenburg County, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court of that County:

"Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 6th day of March 2008."
**Exhibit 32.1** **Certification    pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,** **As adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley    Act of 2002**     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, each of the    undersigned officers of Valeant Pharmaceuticals International    hereby certifies, to the best of such officer’s knowledge,    that:     1. The Registrant’s quarterly report on    Form 10-Q    for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 (the    “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of    Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of    1934, as amended, and     2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents,    in all material respects, the financial condition and results of    operations of Registrant as of and for the periods presented in    the Report. /s/  Timothy    C. Tyson    Timothy C. Tyson    President and Chief Executive Officer     Date: August 7, 2006 /s/  Bary    G. Bailey    Bary G. Bailey    Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer     Date: August 7, 2006     A signed original of this written statement required by    Section 906 has been provided to Valeant Pharmaceuticals    International and will be furnished to the Securities and    Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<PAGE>


                              EXHIBIT 23
                  CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

The Board of Directors
Premier Bancorp, Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No.
333-34243) on Form S-4 of Premier Bancorp, Inc., of our report dated February
11, 2003, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Premier Bancorp,
Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2002 and 2001, and the related
consolidated statements of operations, shareholders' equity and comprehensive
income and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended
December 31, 2002, which report appears in the December 31, 2002 Form 10-K of
Premier Bancorp, Inc.

/s/ KPMG LLP
------------


March 21, 2002
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
EXHIBIT 99.3


                         RECKSON ASSOCIATES REALTY CORP.
                                  EXHIBIT 99.3
              CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63
                      OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE


I, Michael Maturo, Executive Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial
Officer of Reckson Associates Realty Corp. (the "Company"), certify pursuant to
section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

         1)       The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the
                  quarterly period ended September 30, 2002 (the "Report") fully
                  complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
                  the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d));
                  and

         2)       The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and results of
                  operations of the Company.

Dated:  November 12, 2002

                                    By /s/ Michael Maturo
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       Michael Maturo, Executive Vice President,
                                       Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
REAVES v. TOWN OF FAIR BLUFF, et al.

No. 132P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 10, 2008.

Brian Edes, Wilmington, for Town of Fair Bluff, et al.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 24th day of March 2008 by Plaintiff for "Petition for Discretionary Review":

"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference this the 10th day of April 2008."
### Nebraska Court of Appeals Memorandum Opinions NOT Selected for Posting to Court Website

(r eleased the week prior to August 18, 2020 

### )

The following memorandum opinions were filed by the Nebraska Court of Appeals and can be viewed using SSCALES :

A

- 19

- 1021 Storz v. Storz

A

- 19

- 1158 State v. Smith

The above

- listed memorandum opinions c an be viewed online through the appellate court case search available by subscription through Nebra ska.gov: http://www.nebraska.gov/subscriber/

.
Current subscribers to Nebraska.gov can search appellate court cases here: http s ://www.nebraska.gov/courts/s c cales/

.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SURENDER KUMAR,

 Petitioner,

 v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 14-71100

Agency No. A088-129-637

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 24, 2016**

Before: REINHARDT, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

Surender Kumar, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration 

judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, 

and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

JUN 2 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
 2 14-71100 

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the 

agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility 

determinations created by the REAL ID Act, Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 

1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility 

determination based on inconsistencies regarding police visits, whether Kumar’s 

father beat his brother, and when Kumar sold his shop. See id. at 1048 (adverse 

credibility determination was reasonable under the totality of circumstances). 

Kumar’s contention that the IJ misstated his testimony with regard to the number 

of times police visited his house is belied by the record. In the absence of credible 

testimony, Kumar’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. 

Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of Kumar’s CAT 

claim because it was based on the same evidence found not credible, and he does 

not point to any other evidence that compels the finding that it is more likely than 

not that he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the 

government if returned to India. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048-49.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
August 23, 2012.



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

ERNEST EUGENE OVEAL , Appellant

NO. 14

- 12

- 00567

- CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

________________________________ This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. The record indicates that the appeal should be DISMISSED. The Court orders the appeal DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion.
We further order appellant pay all costs expended in the appeal.

We further order this decisio n certified below for observance.