alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 420/2014Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 420/2014 of 24 April 2014 withdrawing the suspension of submission of applications            for import licences for sugar products under certain tariff quotas         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 420/2014                     

# of 24 April 2014

# withdrawing the suspension of submission of applications for import licences for sugar products under certain tariff quotas

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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

Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing                           a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No                           234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007(1),                        

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 891/2009 of 25 September 2009 opening and providing for the administration                           of certain Community tariff quotas in the sugar sector(2), and in particular Article 5(2) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)The submission of applications for import licences concerning order number 09.4317 was suspended as from 27 September 2013                              by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 931/2013(3), in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 891/2009.

(2)Following notifications on unused and/or partly used licences, quantities became available again for this order number. The                              suspension of applications should therefore be withdrawn,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

The suspension of submission of applications for import licences for order number 09.4317 as from 27 September 2013 laid down                     by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 931/2013 is withdrawn.                  

# 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, 24 April 2014.

*For the Commission,*                            

*On behalf of the President*,                           

Jerzy Plewa                            

*Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development*                            

1

OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 671.                           

2

OJ L 254, 26.9.2009, p. 82.                           

3

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 931/2013 of 26 September 2013 fixing the allocation coefficient for the issuing                              of import licences applied for from 8 to 14 September 2013 for sugar products under certain tariff quotas and suspending submission                              of applications for such licences (OJ L 255, 27.9.2013, p. 11).
Billy BOLICK, Employee v. ABF FREIGHT SYSTEMS, INC., Employer (Self-Insured).

No. 76P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 10, 2008.

Neil P. Andrews, Charlotte, M. Duane Jones, for ABF Freight Systems.

Richard Huffman, Salisbury, for Bolick.

Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ___, 654 S.E.2d 793.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the conditional petition filed on the 3rd day of March 2008 by Plaintiff in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 10th day of April 2008."
STATE v. Dane LOCKLEAR, Jr.

No. 578A05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 31, 2008.

William P. Hart, Jr., Special Deputy Attorney General, William B. Crumpler, Assistant Attorney General, L. Johnson Britt, III, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 15th day of January 2008 by Defendant to Amend Record on Appeal:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference this the 31 st day of January 2008."
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32.2

                CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 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, the undersigned Officer of ERF Wireless,
Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that the
Company's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2006 (the
"Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section
15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


April 16, 2007

/s/ R. Greg Smith
-----------------
R. Greg Smith
Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 31.2
CERTIFICATION
I, Mark A. Richman, certify that:
     1. I have reviewed this annual report of Covad Communications Group,Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A (for Amendment No. 1 to the annual reporton Form 10 K for the period ending December 31, 2003);
     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this reportamendment;
     3. Based on my knowledge, the restated financial statements, andother financial information included in this report amendment, fairly presentin all material respects the financial condition, results of operations andcash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport amendment;
     4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as definedin Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
     a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this Amendment is beingprepared;
     b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
     c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case ofan annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and
     5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunction):
     a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process,summarize and restated financial information; and
     b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting.       COVAD COMMUNICATIONS GROUP, INC.      By: /s/ MARK A. RICHMAN       MARK A. RICHMAN   EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT ANDCHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERDate:May 17, 2004
STATE of North Carolina v. Kim Tyrone JESSUP.

No. 335P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 23, 2007.

Kim Tyrone Jessup, pro se.

David P. Brenskelle, Assistant Attorney General, Thomas J. Keith, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 9th day of July 2007 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

*369"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 23rd day of August 2007."
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-7843

KELVIN J. MILES,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY; POLICE DEPARTMENT,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge.

(CA-05-2960)

Submitted: June 28, 2006 Decided: October 2, 2006

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kelvin J. Miles, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Kelvin J. Miles seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Miles has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3452 

To authorize the expansion of the Fort Davis National Historic Site in 

Fort Davis, Texas, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 8, 2008 

Mrs. HUTCHISON introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To authorize the expansion of the Fort Davis National 

Historic Site in Fort Davis, Texas, 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. INCREASED ACREAGE OF THE FORT DAVIS NA4 TIONAL HISTORIC SITE. 

5 Public Law 87–213 (16 U.S.C. 461 note) is amended 

6 as follows: 

7 (1) In the first section— 

8 (A) by striking ‘‘the Secretary of the Inte9 rior’’ and inserting ‘‘(a) The Secretary of the 

10 Interior’’; 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

•S 3452 IS

1 (B) by striking ‘‘476 acres’’ and inserting 

2 ‘‘646 acres’’; and 

3 (C) by adding at the end the following: 

4 ‘‘(b) The Secretary may acquire from willing sellers 

5 land comprising approximately 55 acres, as depicted on 

6 the map titled ‘Fort Davis Proposed Boundary Expan7 sion’, numbered 418/80,045, and dated April 2008. The 

8 map shall be on file and available for public inspection 

9 in the appropriate offices of the National Park Service. 

10 Upon acquisition of the land, the land shall be incor11 porated into the Fort Davis National Historic Site.’’. 

12 (2) By repealing section 3. 

Æ 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
EXHIBIT
32.2





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





The undersigned, Leada Tak Tai Li, the
Chief Financial Officer of CHINA PRECISION STEEL, INC. (the “Company”), DOES
HEREBY CERTIFY that:





1.      The
Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2009
(the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





2.      Information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operation of the Company.





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has
executed this statement this 28th day of
September, 2009.





/s/ Leada Tak Tai LiLeada
      Tak Tai LiChief
      Financial Officer(Principal
      Financial and Accounting
Officer)





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





The
forgoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission pursuant to § 18 U.S.C. Section 1350.  It is not being
filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the
Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general
incorporation language in such filing.
**Exhibit23.2**

 

**IndependentAuditors’ Consent**

 

The Board of Directorsand Shareholders

American Skiing Company:

 

We consent to theincorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-48449 on Form S-8of American Skiing Company of our report dated January 15, 2003, except withrespect to the sixth and seventh paragraphs of Note 1, the fifth paragraph ofNote 8, the second paragraph of Note 9, the twelfth paragraph of Note 18, andthe third and fourth paragraphs of Note 22, for which the date is February 14,2003, on the consolidated balance sheets of American Skiing Company andsubsidiaries as of July 28, 2002 and July 29, 2001, and the relatedconsolidated statements of operations, shareholders’ equity (deficit), and cashflows for each of the years in the three-year period ended July 28, 2002, whichreport appears in the July 28, 2002 Annual Report on Form 10-K of AmericanSkiing Company.  Our report refers tothe adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 142,"Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets" in the fiscal year ended July28, 2002.

 

 
| /s/  KPMG LLP   |
|----------------------|
|                 |
| Salt Lake City, Utah |
| March 7, 2003        |

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARAY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF EAST TEXAS FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., AT
MARCH 31, 1997, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                         497,869
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                       8,694,969
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                               309,230
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                          0
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                      46,966,150
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                        47,276,334
<LOANS>                                     52,071,629
<ALLOWANCE>                                    273,659
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             111,689,390
<DEPOSITS>                                  89,790,720
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            648,771
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        12,564
<OTHER-SE>                                  21,237,335
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             111,689,390
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              2,014,095
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            1,920,745
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             3,934,840
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           2,204,602
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,204,602
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        1,730,238
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    5,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              1,276,890
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                586,315
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     369,023
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   369,023
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.37
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.37
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.16
<LOANS-NON>                                    198,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                478,000
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               289,120
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   54,083
<RECOVERIES>                                    38,622
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              273,659
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            77,652
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        196,007
        

</TABLE>
IN RE D.M.

No. COA07-705.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed February 5, 2008.

Certification Date February 25, 2008.

Appeal from Mecklenburg (01J1186).

Cases reported without published opinion. Affirmed; remanded for correction of clerical error.
IN RE R.D.Q.

No. COA07-883.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed December 18, 2007.

Certification Date January 7, 2008.

Appeal from Stanly (03JA61).

Decision without published opinion. Reversed and remanded.
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3067 

To amend the Public Health Service Act to reauthorize the Dental Health 

Improvement Act. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 22, 2008 

Ms. COLLINS (for herself, Mr. FEINGOLD, and Mr. CARDIN) introduced the 

following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 

Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To amend the Public Health Service Act to reauthorize the 

Dental Health Improvement Act. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Dental Health Im5 provement Act of 2008’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF DENTAL HEALTH IMPROVE7 MENT ACT. 

8 Section 340G of the Public Health Service Act (42 

9 U.S.C. 256g) is amended— 


erowe on PRODPC61 with BILLS
2 

•S 3067 IS

1 (1) in subsection (b)(1)(B), by striking ‘‘and’’ 

2 and inserting ‘‘or’’; and 

3 (2) in subsection (f), by striking ‘‘2002’’ and 

4 inserting ‘‘2008’’. 

Æ 


erowe on PRODPC61 with BILLS
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Carlos Harper, Appellant.

[801 NYS2d 551]

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Counsel’s motion to be relieved of assignment granted *(see People v Crawford,*71 AD2d 38 [1979]). (Appeal from Judgment of Monroe County Court, Elma A. Bellini, J.— Attempted Burglary, 3rd Degree). Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Gorski, Martoche, Pine and Lawton, JJ.
# C_2023024EN.01004901.xml

| 23.1.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.1.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/49

---

Action brought on 11 November 2022 — Newalliance v Commission

(Case T-683/22)

(2023/C 24/64)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Newalliance Comércio Internacional, Lda (Zona Franca da Madeira) (Funchal, Portugal) (represented by: S. Gemas Donário and S. Soares, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul Commission Decision C(2020) 8550 final of 4 December 2020 on aid scheme SA.21259 (2018/C) (ex 2018/NN) implemented by Portugal for Zona Franca da Madeira (ZFM) — Regime III; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Decision C(2020) 8550 final of 4 December 2020 on aid scheme SA.21259 (2018/C) (ex 2018/NN) implemented by Portugal for Zona Franca da Madeira (ZFM) — Regime III;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law that are essentially identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-553/22, Thorn Investments v Commission.

---
Exhibit 23.2**Consent of Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**We consent to the incorporation by reference in the (i) Registration Statement (Form S-8/S-3 No.333-81755) pertaining to the 1997 Stock Plan and 1998 Employee Stock Purchase Plan of CovadCommunications Group, Inc., (ii) Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-35632) pertaining to the1997 Stock Option Plan of Laser Link.net, Inc., (iii) Registration Statement (Form S-8 No.333-49984) pertaining to the 2000 Stock Incentive Plan of BlueStar Communications Group, Inc., (iv)Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-106211) pertaining to the Covad Communications Group, Inc.2003 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, (v) Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-116061) pertainingto the 1997 Stock Plan of Covad Communications Group, Inc., (vi) Registration Statement (Form S-8No. 333-116900) pertaining to the Infraswitch Corporation 2000 Employee and Consultant EquityIncentive Plan, (vii) Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-116060) and related Prospectus ofCovad Communications Group, Inc. for the registration of $125,000,000 of 3% Convertible SeniorDebentures due 2024 (and the shares of common stock issuable upon conversion of such debentures)and (viii) Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-127247) pertaining to 7,910,426 additionalshares of common stock automatically reserved for issuance upon exercise of stock options grantedunder the 1997 Stock Plan of Covad Communications Group, Inc. of our report dated February 12, 2004(except for (i) the fourth and fifteenth paragraphs of Note 13 and (ii) Note 14, as to which thedates are May 11, 2004 and May 27, 2004, respectively), with respect to the consolidated statementsof operations, stockholders’ equity (deficit) and cash flows of Covad Communications Group, Inc.for the year ended December 31, 2003, included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year endedDecember 31, 2005.     /s/ Ernst & Young LLPSan Francisco, California
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-17-00120-CR

Torivio "Toby" Gutierrez

v.

The State of Texas

On Appeal from the

24th District Court of Goliad County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 15-01-4816-CR

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

March 26, 2020