alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
| (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      Trust. |

| /s/      Randall D. Holmes |
|----------------------------|
| Name:                      | Randall      D. Holmes |
| Title:                     | President      and Chief Executive Officer(Principal      Executive Officer)  |
| Date:                      | November  7,      2008 |

| /s/      Jeffrey H. Strasberg |
|-------------------------------|
| Name:                         | Jeffrey      H. Strasberg |
| Title:                        | Executive      Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
|                          | (Principal      Financial and Accounting Officer)  |
| Date:                         | November  7,      2008 |

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6725

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

LEVELT FRANCOIS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (CR-88-51-A)

Submitted: October 17, 1996 Decided: October 24, 1996

Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Levelt Francois, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Clifford Chesnut, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his

motion to set aside his sentence. We have reviewed the record and

the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United

States v. Francois, No. CR-88-51-A (E.D. Va. Jan. 4, 1996). 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.

AFFIRMED
| COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS(Dollars in thousands) |
|---------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                         |
|                                                         | For the three months ended |
|                                                         | March 31, 2002 | March 31, 2003 |
|                                                         | IncomeWeightedAverageSharesPer shareAmountIncomeWeightedAverageSharesPer shareAmountBasic EPS    Income available to common shareholders$6861,333,712$0.51$7851,322,861$0.59Effect of dilutive securities    Options39,37250,213Diluted EPS    Income available to common shareholders$6861,373,085$0.50$7851,373,074$0.57 |
# C_2023024EN.01007601.xml

| 23.1.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/76 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.1.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/76

---

Action brought on 25 November 2022 — Tokareva v Council

(Case T-744/22)

(2023/C 24/102)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Maya Tokareva (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: T. Bontinck, A. Guillerme and L. Burguin, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/1530 of 14 September 2022, (1) published in the Official Journal on 15 September 2022, in so far as it makes Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP of 17 March 2014 (as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/1272 of 21 July 2022, which included the applicant’s name as entry No 1201 in the annex to Council Decision 2014/145) applicable until 15 March 2023; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/1530 of 14 September 2022, (1) published in the Official Journal on 15 September 2022, in so far as it makes Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP of 17 March 2014 (as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/1272 of 21 July 2022, which included the applicant’s name as entry No 1201 in the annex to Council Decision 2014/145) applicable until 15 March 2023;

| — | annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/1529 of 14 September 2022, (2) in so far as it maintains the applicant’s name as entry No 1201 in Annex I to Regulation (EU) 2014/269; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/1529 of 14 September 2022, (2) in so far as it maintains the applicant’s name as entry No 1201 in Annex I to Regulation (EU) 2014/269;

| — | order the Council to make a provisional payment of EUR 1 000 000 in respect of the non-material damage suffered by the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council to make a provisional payment of EUR 1 000 000 in respect of the non-material damage suffered by the applicant;

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

—

order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law, which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-734/22, Pumpyanskiy v Council.

---

(1)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/1530 of 14 September 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 239, p. 149).

(2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/1529 of 14 September 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 239, p. 1).

---
STATE v. STONE.

No. COA07-708.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed April 1, 2008.

Certification Date April 21, 2008.

Appeal from the Guilford (03CRS90007, 03CRS90394).

Cases Reported Without Published Opinion. No error.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM THE ANNUAL
REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE FISCAL QUARTER ENDED MARCH 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         595,806
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         765,009
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0 
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0 
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 11,471,858
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                      11,471,858
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                        11,471,858
<LOANS>                                     24,995,569
<ALLOWANCE>                                    405,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              38,984,558
<DEPOSITS>                                  28,152,341
<SHORT-TERM>                                 3,783,822
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            619,904
<LONG-TERM>                                  2,336,452 
<COMMON>                                         1,958
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0 
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,090,081
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              38,984,558
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                545,068
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              175,274
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                24,992
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               745,334
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             350,025
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             105,472
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          289,937
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   10,500      
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                279,014
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 60,766
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      60,766
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0 
<NET-INCOME>                                    42,064
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .23
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .23
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                     .78
<LOANS-NON>                                    161,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                   118,000 
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0 
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0 
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               400,000
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    8,000 
<RECOVERIES>                                     3,000 
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              405,000
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           405,000 
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0 
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        357,000
        

</TABLE>
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 424/2014Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 424/2014 of 22 April 2014 entering a name in the register of protected designations            of origin and protected geographical indications (Prekmurska šunka (PGI))         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 424/2014                     

# of 22 April 2014

# entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Prekmurska šunka                        (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, Slovenia's application to register the name ‘Prekmurska šunka’                              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, the name                              ‘Prekmurska šunka’ 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 April 2014.

*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 1.2. Meat products (cooked, salted, smoked, etc.)**U.K.

#### SLOVENIAU.K.

Prekmurska šunka (PGI)

1

OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.                           

2

OJ C 361, 11.12.2013, p. 13.
# The Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 (Commencement No. 4 and Saving Provision) (Amendment) Order 2014

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

Statutory Instruments

# 2014 No. 824 (C. 33)

Agricultural Employment, England

Landlord And Tenant, England

Terms And Conditions Of Employment, England

# The Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 (Commencement No. 4 and Saving Provision) (Amendment) Order 2014

Made

26th March 2014

The Secretary of State makes the following Order in exercise of the powers conferred by section 103(3) and (4) of the Enterprise                           and Regulatory Reform Act 2013(1).                        

## CitationU.K.

1.  This Order may be cited as the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 (Commencement No. 4 and Saving Provision) (Amendment)                     Order 2014.                  

## Amendments of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 (Commencement No. 4 and Saving Provision) Order 2013U.K.

2.  The Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 (Commencement No. 4 and Saving Provision) Order 2013(2) is amended as follows—                  

(a)in article 3 (provisions coming into force on 31st March 2014)—                  

(i)omit “sections 13 and 14 of, and”,                  

(ii)after “Schedule 1 to” omit the comma;                  

(b)after article 3 insert—                  

### “Provisions coming into force on 30th September 2014

3A.Section 72(4) of, and paragraph 2 of Schedule 20 to, the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 so far as relating to sections                        13 and 14 of the Agricultural Wages Act 1948 come into force in relation to England on 30th September 2014.”.                  

George Eustice

Parliamentary Under Secretary of State

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

26th March 2014

## EXPLANATORY NOTE

(This note is not part of the Order)

This Order amends the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 (Commencement No. 4 and Saving Provision) Order 2013 (S.I. 2013/2979 (C. 122)).                  

Article 2 amends the provision which was to bring into force on 31st March 2014 in relation to England the repeal of provisions                     in the Agricultural Wages Act 1948 (c. 47 (11 &12 Geo 6)) relating to the laying of annual reports to Parliament and expenses                     of or authorised by the Minister. The effect of this amendment is to defer this repeal until 30th September 2014 except in                     relation to the provision for payment of members of the Agricultural Wages Board which is unaffected by this amendment.                  

## NOTE AS TO EARLIER COMMENCEMENT ORDERS

(This note is not part of the Order)

The following provisions of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 are brought into force by commencement orders before                     the date of this Order:                  

1

2013 c. 24.                           

2

S.I. 2013/2979 (C. 122).
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 173 (Thursday, September 8, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 53331]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-17812]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ANTITRUST MODERNIZATION COMMISSION


Notice of Public Hearings

AGENCY: Antitrust Modernization Commission.

ACTION: Notice of public hearings.

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

SUMMARY: The Antitrust Modernization Commission will hold public 
hearings on September 29, 2005. The topics of the hearings are the 
State Action Doctrine and Exclusionary Conduct.

DATES: September 29, 2005, 9:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. and 12:45 p.m. to 5 
p.m. Interested members of the public may attend. Registration is not 
required.

ADDRESSES: Federal Trade Commission, Headquarters Room 432, 600 
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew J. Heimert, Executive Director 
& General Counsel, Antitrust Modernization Commission: telephone: (202) 
233-0701; e-mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#21484f474e61404c420f464e57"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="70191e161f30111d135e171f06">[email protected]</span></a>. Mr. Heimert is also the Designated 
Federal Officer (DFO) for the Antitrust Modernization Commission.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The purpose of these hearings is for the 
Antitrust Modernization Commission to take testimony and receive 
evidence regarding the State Action Doctrine and Exclusionary Conduct. 
The hearing on the State Action Doctrine will consist of one panel. It 
will begin at 9:30 a.m. and conclude at 11:30 a.m. The hearing on 
Exclusionary Conduct will consist of two panels. The first panel will 
begin at 12:45 p.m. and run until 2:45 p.m. The second panel will run 
from 3 p.m. to 5 p.m. Materials relating to the hearings, including 
lists of witnesses and the prepared statements of the witnesses, will 
be made available on the Commission's Web site (http://www.amc.gov) in 
advance of the hearings.
    Interested members of the public may submit written testimony on 
the subject of the hearing in the form of comments, pursuant to the 
Commission's request for comments. See 70 FR 28902 (May 19, 2005). 
Members of the public will not be provided with an opportunity to make 
oral remarks at the hearings.
    The AMC is holding this hearing pursuant to its authorizing 
statute. Antitrust Modernization Commission Act of 2002, Pub. L. 107-
273, section 11057(a), 116 Stat. 1758, 1858.

    Dated: September 2, 2005.

    By direction of the Antitrust Modernization Commission.
Andrew J. Heimert,
Executive Director & General Counsel, Antitrust Modernization 
Commission.
[FR Doc. 05-17812 Filed 9-7-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-YH-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
IN RE P.R.

No. COA07-1432.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed April 1, 2008.

Certification Date April 21, 2008.

Appeal from the Orange (06JA179, 06JA180).

Cases Reported Without Published Opinion. Reversed in part; affirmed in part.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20
- 1490

EARL VENNINGS, JR. , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. BEATRICE WHITTEN , Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Charleston

. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. ( 2:20

- cv - 00003

- MGL )

Submitted : September 24, 2020 Decided: September 28, 2020

Before HARRIS and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. Earl Vennings, Jr. , Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Earl Venning s, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advi sed Vennings that failure to file timely , specific objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is

ne cessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Martin v

. Duffy , 858 F.3d 239, 245 (4th Cir. 2017); Wright v. Collins , 766 F.2d 841, 846

- 47 (4th Cir. 1985 ); see also Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140 , 154

- 55 (1985). Although Vennings received proper notice and filed timely objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation, he has waived appellate review because the objections were not specific to the particularized legal recommendations made by the magistrate judge. See Martin , 858 F.3d at 245 (holding that, “to preserve for appeal an issue in a magistrate judge’s report, a party must object to the finding or recommendation on that issue with sufficient specificity so as reasonably to alert the district court of the true ground for the objection” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court

.3 We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argum ent would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
IN RE JEJ.

No. COA07-589.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed February 5, 2008.

Certification Date February 25, 2008.

Appeal from Wake (05JT650).

Cases reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
STATE v. MANN.

No. COA06-1693.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed May 20, 2008.

Certification Date June 9, 2008.

Appeal from Guilford (05CRS24646, 05CRS84003, 05CRS84004).

Cases reported without published opinion. No error; sentence vacated and remanded.
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1056/2014Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1056/2014 of 7 October 2014 establishing the standard import values for determining            the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1056/2014                     

# of 7 October 2014

# 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 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 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, 7 October 2014.

*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 347, 20.12.2013, p. 671.                           

2

OJ L 157, 15.6.2011, p. 1.