alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 928/2014Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 928/2014 of 27 August 2014 approving non-minor amendments to the specification            for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Crottin de            Chavignol/Chavignol (PDO))         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 928/2014                     

# of 27 August 2014

# approving non-minor amendments to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin                        and protected geographical indications (Crottin de Chavignol/Chavignol (PDO))                     

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)By virtue of the first subparagraph of Article 53(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, the Commission has examined France's                              application for the approval of amendments to the specification for the protected designation of origin ‘Crottin de Chavignol’/‘Chavignol’,                              registered under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1107/96(2).

(2)Since the amendments in question are not minor within the meaning of Article 53(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, the Commission                              published the amendment application in the *Official Journal of the European Union* (3) as required by Article 50(2)(a) of that Regulation.

(3)As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the amendments                              should be approved,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

The amendments to the specification published in the *Official Journal of the European Union* regarding the name ‘Crottin de Chavignol’/‘Chavignol’ (PDO) are hereby approved.                  

# 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, 27 August 2014.

*For the Commission,*                            

*On behalf of the President,*                            

Andris Piebalgs                            

*Member of the Commission*                            

1

OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.                           

2

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 of 12 June 1996 on the registration of geographical indications and designations of                              origin under the procedure laid down in Article 17 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 (OJ L 148, 21.6.1996, p. 1).                           

3

OJ C 103, 8.4.2014, p. 16.
STATE v. Reginald V. RUCKER.

No. 478P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 6, 2007.

Amy C. Kunstling, Assistant Attorney General, Philip E. Berger, Jr., District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 24th day of September 2007 by Defendant for Discretionary Review by the Supreme Court:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference this the 6th day of December 2007."
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3647 

To assist the State of Louisiana in flood protection and coastal restoration 

projects, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 27 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 17), 2008 

Ms. LANDRIEU introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Appropriations 

A BILL 

To assist the State of Louisiana in flood protection and 

coastal restoration projects, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. FLOOD PROTECTION AND COASTAL RESTORA4 TION PROJECTS, STATE OF LOUISIANA. 

5 (a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

6 (1) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means 

7 the Secretary of the Army. 

8 (2) STATE.—The term ‘‘State’’ means the State 

9 of Louisiana. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
2 

•S 3647 IS

1 (b) APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be ap2 propriated and is appropriated, without fiscal year limita3 tion, to the Secretary on October 1, 2008, out of any funds 

4 in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, 

5 $1,500,000,000— 

6 (1) for levee and flood protection repairs, res7 toration, and improvements, critical coastal restora8 tion projects, the dredging of effected waterways, 

9 and the beneficial use of dredged material in the 

10 State; and 

11 (2) to be provided by the Secretary to the State 

12 in accordance with subsection (c). 

13 (c) DUTY OF SECRETARY.—The Secretary shall pro14 vide to the State the amounts appropriated under sub15 section (b) on the later of— 

16 (1) a date that is not later than 90 days after 

17 the date on which the Governor of the State submits 

18 to the Secretary a plan describing the means by 

19 which the State will use the amounts appropriated 

20 under subsection (b); or 

21 (2) October 1, 2008. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-10357 Summary Calendar

DAVID LOPEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus TEXAS DEP’T OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, ET AL., Defendants, TEXAS DEP’T OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE; TEXAS STATE OF; C. BELL, Warden, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:96-CV-242

- - - - - - - - - - September 24, 1997 Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * This court must examine the basis of its own jurisdiction on its own motion, if necessary. Mosley v. Cozby , 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir. 1987). The document which has been construed as a notice of appeal in this case, district court docket number 41, primarily sought reconsideration of the district court’s order and judgment of dismissal. Because theNo. 97-10357 -2- document did not clearly evince the litigant’s intent to appeal, it cannot serve as a valid notice of appeal. See id. Apparently, document number 41 was filed within 10 days of entry of the magistrate judge’s order and judgment. See Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988). If so, it should be regarded as a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). Because the district court has not disposed of the Rule 59(e) motion, and because there is no other document in the record which could serve as a notice of appeal from that judgment, the court does not have jurisdiction.
APPEAL DISMISSED.
#### In the Matter of Julio I. Smith, Petitioner, v Glenn S. Goord, as Commissioner of Correctional Services, Respondent.

[800 NYS2d 789]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Franklin County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging a tier III disciplinary determination finding him guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rules that prohibit fighting, violent conduct, refusing a direct order, possession of weapons and tampering with an electrical device. Initially, petitioner is precluded from challenging the determination finding him guilty of fighting and tampering with an electrical device insofar as he pleaded guilty to these charges (see *Matter of Lopez v Goord,*20 AD3d 836, 836 [2005]; *Matter of Lebron v McGinnis,*20 AD3d 793, 793 [2005]). As to the balance of the determination, the two misbehavior reports and the testimony at the hearing provide substantial evidence of petitioner’s guilt (see *Matter of Barca v Goord,*19 AD3d 772, 773 [2005]; *Matter of Shell v Superintendent of Oneida Correctional Facility,*18 AD3d 1044, 1044 [2005]). Petitioner’s contention that the determination was the result of bias on the part of the Hearing Officer and/or a conspiracy by the correction officers is unsupported by the record (see *Matter of Boyd v Goord,*18 AD3d 1078, 1079 [2005]; *Matter of Odome v Goord,*14 AD3d 975, 976 [2005]). To the extent that they were preserved, petitioner’s remaining contentions have been reviewed and found to be without merit.

Cardona, P.J., Crew III, Peters, Mugglin and Kane, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
# Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014Show full title

Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia's actions destabilising            the situation in Ukraine (revoked)         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014                     

# of 31 July 2014

# concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia's actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (revoked)

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

Textual Amendments

F1Regulation revoked (31.12.2020) by The Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (S.I. 2019/855), regs. 1(2), **98(c)** (with reg. 103); 2020 c. 1, **Sch. 5 para. 1(1)**
# Commission Regulation (EU) No 1192/2014Show full title

Commission Regulation (EU) No 1192/2014 of 3 November 2014 establishing a prohibition of fishing for haddock in area IIIa,            Union waters of Subdivisions 22-32 by vessels flying the flag of the Netherlands         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Regulation (EU) No 1192/2014                     

# of 3 November 2014

# establishing a prohibition of fishing for haddock in area IIIa, Union waters of Subdivisions 22-32 by vessels flying the flag                        of the Netherlands                     

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, 3 November 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).
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 174 (Friday, September 9, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 53562]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-17834]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2005-21873; Airspace Docket No. 05-ACE-27]


Modification of Class D and Class E Airspace; Salina Municipal 
Airport, KS

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Direct final rule; request for comments; correction.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This action corrects an error in the legal description of 
Class D airspace in a direct final rule, request for comments that was 
published in the Federal Register on Friday July 29, 2005 (70 FR 
43742).

DATES: This direct final rule is effective on 0901 UTC, October 27, 
2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brenda Mumper, Air Traffic Division, 
Airspace Branch, ACE-520A, DOT Regional Headquarters Building, Federal 
Aviation Administration, 901 Locust, Kansas City, MO 64106; telephone: 
(816) 329-2524.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    Federal Register Document 2005-21873, published on Friday July 29, 
2005 (70 FR 43742), modified Class D and Class E Airspace at Salina 
Municipal Airport, KS. The phrase ``This Class D airspace area is 
effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by 
a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be 
continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory,'' was 
incorrectly deleted from the legal description of Class D airspace. 
This action corrects that error.
    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the error 
in the legal description of Class D Airspace, Topeka, Forbes Field, KS 
as published in the Federal Register Friday July 29, 2005 (70 FR 
43742), (FR Doc. 2005-21873), is corrected as follows:
    On page 43743, Column 1, under SUMMARY, delete the following 
sentences: ``This action also removes references to effective dates and 
times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen from the legal 
descriptions for Class D airspace. The effective dates and times are 
now continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory''.

PART 71--[CORRECTED]


Sec.  71.1  [Corrected]

0
On page 43744, Column 1, at the end of the legal description of ACE KS 
D Salina KS, add the phrase ``This Class D airspace area is effective 
during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice 
to Airmen.The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously 
published in the Airport/Facility Directory.''

    Issued in Kansas City, MO, on August 24, 2005.
Elizabeth S. Wallis,
Acting Area Director, Western Flight Services Operations.
[FR Doc. 05-17834 Filed 9-8-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Exhibit 32.1



VERTICALNET, INC.



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



I, Nathanael V. Lentz, President and Chief Executive Officer of Verticalnet, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation (the Company), hereby certify to my knowledge that:



(1) The Companys annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2004 (the Form 10-K) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



(2) The information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.



/s/ NATHANAEL V. LENTZNathanael V. LentzPresident and Chief Executive Officer




Date: March 31, 2005



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Verticalnet, Inc. and will be retained by Verticalnet, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
STATE v. VAUGHAN.

No. COA07-677.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed April 1, 2008.

Certification Date April 21, 2008.

Appeal from the Northampton (05CRS1722, 05CRS1811, 05CRS1812, 05CRS51023).

Cases Reported Without Published Opinion. No error.
BAILEY v. BAILEY.

No. COA07-1340.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed April 15, 2008.

Certification Date May 5, 2008.

Appeal from Wilson (00CVD1513).

Cases reported without published opinion. Affirmed in part; Reversed in part.
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Alston, Ch afin and Senior Judge Haley

FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION MEMORANDUM OPINION * v. Record No. 1870-15-1 PER CURIAM APRIL 5, 2016 LASHAWN RODGERS

FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKER S’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION (Nirav Patel; Franklin & Prokop ik, P.C., on brief) , for appellant. (Charlene A. Morring; Montagna Klein Camden, LLP, on brief), for appellee.

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opin ion is not designated for publication. Federal Express Corporation (“employer”) appeals from an October 30, 2015 opinion of the Workers’ Compensation Commission. The Commission affirmed a deputy commissioner’s opinion reinstating temporary total disability benefits and awarding Lashawn Rodgers (“claimant”) a prescribed hot tub. On app eal, employer contends the Commission erred by (1) “failing to find that the claimant’s disabili ty was not related to the November 21, 2006 work accident,” (2) finding “that the single person sa lt-based hot tub is medically necessary and reasonable for the claimant,” and (3) “failing to make any credibility determinations regarding the claimant’s testimony during th e May 18, 2015 evidentiary hearing.” Upon reviewing the record and briefs, we conc lude that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the Commission’s decision. Ru le 5A:27. We affirm for the reasons stated by the Commission in its final opinion. See Rodgers v. Federal Express, JCN VA00000360728 (Oct. 30, 2015). We dispense with oral argument and summarily affirmUNPUBLISHED- 2 - because the facts and legal contentions are adequate ly presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional pr ocess. See Code § 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27.

Affirmed.
DOSS v. TATUM.

No. COA07-1426.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed August 5, 2008.

Certification Date August 25, 2008.

Appeal from Rockingham (06CVS2159).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
FIRST
AMENDMENT


TO


INTERMEC,
INC. RESTORATION PLAN





The Intermec, Inc. Restoration Plan, As
Amended and Restated as of January 1, 2008 (“Plan”), is hereby amended in the
following manner, effective as of December 31, 2009:





1.
            Rule
      of 70 Employees shall cease to be covered under the Plan, with no further
      benefits accruing on or after January 1,
2010.





In all
other respects, the terms of the Plan shall remain in full force and
effect.





Intermec,
Inc. has caused this Amendment to be executed by its authorized representatives
on this 18th day
of December, 2009.






Intermec,
Inc.
  
 
 By /s/ Jeanne
Lyon
 Jeanne
Lyon
 Vice
President, Human Resources
 
 
  
 By  /s/ Frank
McCallick
 Frank
McCallick
 Vice
President, Tax
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 1.02


                                     FORM OF
                                ROAMING AGREEMENT

This Agreement is entered into as of October 14, 1997, by and between Western
Wireless Corporation, a Washington corporation ("WWC"), and Western PCS
Corporation, a Delaware corporation ("WPCS").

WHEREAS, WWC and WPCS each anticipates providing roaming services to the other;

WHEREAS, WWC and WPCS anticipate entering into the industry standard
Intercarrier Roamer Service Agreement (the "Standard Agreement"), a copy of
which is attached hereto as Schedule A; and

WHEREAS, WWC and WPCS desire to provide roaming services to one another at rates
that are no less favorable than rates that each charges its own subsidiaries,
affiliates, and third parties;

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises contained
herein and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy
of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows:

1. WWC and WPCS hereby warrant that each will provide roaming on its system (or
the systems of third parties, if possible) to the other on terms at least as
favorable as those offered by them to their other subsidiaries, affiliates, and
third parties.

2. WWC and WPCS agree to pass through any benefits received from third parties
to the other (if so permitted by the third party contracts) at cost.

3. WWC further agrees, if within the control of WWC, to use its reasonable best
efforts to provide roaming technology for the benefit of WPCS customers where
necessary.

4. WWC and WPCS agree that notwithstanding any terms to the contrary in the
Standard Agreement or any other related agreement, each will give the other no
less than six months written notice prior to termination of any such agreement.

5. WWC and WPCS agree that all roaming agreements between them shall be modified
by mutual consent to reflect industry technological changes applicable to PCS to
AMPS roaming and vice versa.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be duly executed
on their behalf by their officers thereunto duly authorized as of the day and
year first above written.

WESTERN WIRELESS CORPORATION                WESTERN PCS CORPORATION

By:_______________________________          By:_______________________________

Name:_____________________________          Name:_____________________________

Its:______________________________          Its:______________________________
<PAGE>

                                                                 EXHIBIT 11.1


                            TEKGRAF, INC.

                   COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
               (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE AMOUNTS)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                     FOR THE YEAR ENDED
                                                        DECEMBER 31,
                                                    2000          1999
                                                    ----          ----
<S>                                               <C>           <C>
Net loss                                           $ (2,334)     $ (7,118)

Basic and diluted weighted average number of
  common shares                                   6,130,366     6,161,664

Basic and diluted net loss per share               $  (0.38)     $  (1.16)
                                                  =========     =========
</TABLE>