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

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

J. Felix Rogers, PhD, MPH, Scientific Review Administrator, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, 4770 Buford Highway, MS-K92, Atlanta, GA 30341, Telephone 404.639.6101. 

                        The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign                         **Federal Register**                         notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both CDC and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.                     

Dated: August 26, 2005. 

B. Kathy Skipper, 

Acting Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 

[FR Doc. 05-17410 Filed 8-31-05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
SCOTT v. ROSS

No. COA07-104

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed February 19, 2008.

Certification Date March 10, 2008.

Appeal from Onslow (03CVS1911).

Decision without published opinion. Affirmed.
STATE v. LEWIS.

No. COA07-902.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed February 5, 2008.

Certification Date February 25, 2008.

Appeal from Durham (05CRS51998).

Cases reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
#### Lucia Hernandez, Appellant, v Larry L. Hagans et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant.

[801 NYS2d 4]

*336Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bertram Katz, J.), entered May 24, 2004, which granted defendants-respondents’ motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs husband died from injuries sustained when the vehicle he was driving was struck by a vehicle that defendant Colon had stolen from a nearby parking lot occupied by defendant Supertrans, a bus company that provides transportation for private schools. Plaintiff alleges that Supertrans was negligent in failing to provide adequate security for the lot, and in creating a condition that increased the risk of car theft from the lot by directing its employees who chose to park their personal cars in the lot to leave the cars unlocked with the keys inside. The motion court dismissed the action as against Supertrans and the lot’s owner, defendant Ferrovecchio, upon a finding that the risk of car theft from the fenced lot was not foreseeable as a matter of law, and that Colon’s conduct was an intervening superseding cause. We need not render those issues and reach the same result with respect to Supertrans and Ferrovecchio, but for a different reason, namely, that they had no relationship with plaintiff’s decedent sufficient to support imposing upon them a duty to protect him from the criminal conduct of a third party over whom they had neither supervision nor control *(see Igbara v Verizon Communications,*2 AD3d 330 [2003], *citing Hamilton v Beretta U.S.A. Corp.,*96 NY2d 222 [2001] and *Lauer v City of New York,*95 NY2d 95, 100 [2000]; *see also Waters v New York City Hous. Auth.,*69 NY2d 225 [1987]). With respect to Hagans, the stolen car’s owner, we agree that the motion court properly found that Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1210 (a) (the “key in the ignition statute”) is inapplicable since the vehicle was not parked in a parking lot as defined in Vehicle and Traffic Law § 129-b (see *also*Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1100 [a]). The lot was used to park the school buses used in Supertrans’s business and the private cars of its *337employees, and, except for Supertrans’s prospective employees, there is no evidence that it was used by the general public as a means of access to and egress from a nearby store or business establishment as required by Vehicle and Traffic Law § 129-b *(see Surace v Kersten,*278 AD2d 226 [2000]). Concur—Andrias, J.P., Marlow, Sullivan, Ellerin and Nardelli, JJ.
In the Matter of J.T., et al.

No. 155P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 10, 2008.

Beth A. Hall, Attorney Advocate, for Guardian ad Litem.

Richard Croutharmel, for Mother.

Peter Wood, for Father.

Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ___, 657 S.E.2d 692.

*247The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 9th day of April 2008 by Petitioners (Cumberland County DSS & GAL) for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference this the 10th day of April 2008."
# Electricity (Priority Dispatch) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2013

        - Previous
        - Next

N.I.

Statutory Rules of Northern Ireland

# 2013 No. 3

Electricity

# Electricity (Priority Dispatch) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2013

Made

11th January 2013

Coming into operation

1st February 2013

The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, being a Department designated(1) for the purposes of section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972(2) in relation to energy and energy sources, makes the following Regulations in exercise of the powers conferred by that section.                        

## Citation, commencement and interpretationN.I.

1.—(1) These Regulations may be cited as the Electricity (Priority Dispatch) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2013 and                     shall come into operation on 1st February 2013.                  

(2) The Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954(3) shall apply to these Regulations as it applies to an Act of the Assembly.                  

Commencement Information

I1Reg. 1 in operation at 1.2.2013, see **reg. 1(1)**

## Existing Transmission LicencesN.I.

2.—(1) The Electricity (Priority Dispatch) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2012(4) are amended in accordance with paragraph (2).                  

(2) In regulation 4 for “paragraph (1)” substitute “Regulation 3”.

Commencement Information

I2Reg. 2 in operation at 1.2.2013, see **reg. 1(1)**

Sealed with the Official Seal of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment on 11th January 2013.

A F Hepper

A senior officer of the

Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment

## EXPLANATORY NOTE

(This note is not part of the Regulations)

Regulation 4 of the Electricity (Priority Dispatch) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2012 (“the original Regulations”) allows                     for the modification of existing electricity transmission licences requiring the inclusion of appropriate conditions in new                     electricity transmission licences, to ensure that dispatch of electricity by the licence holders complies with these rules                     of priority. These Regulations correct an error in Regulation 4 of the original Regulations to more clearly identify the conditions                     to which the provisions of that Regulation relates.                  

These Regulations are being issued free of charge to all known recipients of the original Regulations.

An explanatory memorandum and transposition notes have already been completed for the original Regulations and as there is                     no change to scope of the instrument, no further explanatory memorandum or transposition notes have been produced.                  

1

S.I. 2010/761                           

2

1972 c. 68; section 2(2) was amended by section 27(1)(a) of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006 (c.51) and Part 1 of the Schedule to the European Union (Amendment) Act 2008 (c.7).                           

3

1954 c.33 (N.I.)                           

4

S.R. 2012/385
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPI RES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT
SONNY GARCIA, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D13-6251 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ________________________________ ) Opinion filed December 3, 2014. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lee County; Edward J. Volz, Jr., Judge. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Richard P. Albertine, Jr., Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Gillian N. Leytham, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

MORRIS, Judge. Sonny Garcia appeals the revocation of his sex offender probat ion for the offense of possession of child pornography and his resulting se ntence of forty-eight months in prison. We affirm the revocation of his probation be cause there was competent, substantial evidence to support the trial court's fi nding that Garcia-2- "intentional[ly] disregard[ed] . . . the GPS monitoring rules," constituting a willful and substantial violation of probation. Correa v. State, 43 So. 3d 738, 745 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (noting that "noncompliance with the rules [that] results from equipment problems or the subject's unintentional failure to operate the equipment properly . . . does not rise to the level of a willful and substantial violation of probatio n" but that "intentional disregard of the GPS monitoring rules, tampering with the equip ment, or actual violations of curfew or other activity restrictions will genera lly amount to willful and substantial violations"); see also State v. Carter, 835 So. 2d 259, 262 (Fla. 2002) ("The trial court is in a better position to identify the probation v iolator's motive, intent, and attitude and assess whether the violation is both willful and s ubstantial."). Affirmed.

DAVIS, C.J., and LaROSE, J., Concur.
STATE of North Carolina v. Jimmy Lawrence SHUE.

No. 48P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 27, 2007.

Jimmy L. Shue, pro se.

Amy C. Kunstling, Assistant Attorney General, Robert F. Johnson, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 25th day of January 2007 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

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

HUDSON, J., recused.
# C_2023024EN.01006301.xml

| 23.1.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/63 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.1.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/63

---

Action brought on 21 November 2022 — Odeon Cinemas Holdings v EUIPO — Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (OSCAR)

(Case T-727/22)

(2023/C 24/87)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Odeon Cinemas Holdings Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: L. Axel Karnøe Søndergaard, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (Beverly Hills, California, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark OSCAR — European Union trade mark No 2 931 038

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 September 2022 in Case R 1841/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
STATE of North Carolina v. Patrice PARKER and Ramelle Holloway.

No. 462P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 6, 2007.

Nora Henry Hargrove, Sofie Hosford, for Parker and Holloway.

Anne M. Middleton, Kathleen U. Baldwin, Assistant Attorney Generals, Seth Edwards, District Attorney, for State of NC.

Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ___, 651 S.E.2d 377.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendants on the 20th day of September 2007 for Writ of Supersedeas of the judgment of the Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 6th day of December 2007."

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by the Defendants on the 25th day of September 2007 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30, and the motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question filed by the Attorney General, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the motion to dismiss the appeal is

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 6th day of December 2007."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 25th day of September 2007 by Defendants 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:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 6th day of December 2007."
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1009/2014Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1009/2014 of 25 September 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 1009/2014                     

# of 25 September 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 Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural                           markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation)(1),                        

Having regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application                           of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors(2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations,                              the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products                              and periods stipulated in Annex XVI, Part A thereto.

(2)The standard import value is calculated each working day, in accordance with Article 136(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU)                              No 543/2011, taking into account variable daily data. Therefore this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its                              publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

The standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to                     this Regulation.                  

# Article 2U.K.

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*.                  

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 25 September 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 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.                           

2

OJ L 157, 15.6.2011, p. 1.
# C_2023121EN.01000601.xml

| 3.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 121/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 121/6

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale della Liguria (Italy) lodged on 16 January 2023 — FA.RO. di YK & C. Sas v Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli

(Case C-16/23)

(2023/C 121/09)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale della Liguria

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: FA.RO. di YK & C. Sas

Respondent: Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 15 of Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market (1) and Articles 49, 56 and 106(2) TFEU be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which imposes restrictions on the authorisation of tobacco product outlets according to a minimum geographical distance between providers and according to the resident population? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 15 of Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market (1) and Articles 49, 56 and 106(2) TFEU be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which imposes restrictions on the authorisation of tobacco product outlets according to a minimum geographical distance between providers and according to the resident population?

| 2. | Must Article 15 of Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market and Articles 49, 56 and 106(2) TFEU be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which makes the authorisation of tobacco product outlets subject to compliance with pre-established criteria relating to the minimum geographical distance between suppliers and to the resident population, without allowing the competent public authority to assess other objective factual circumstances that demonstrate, even where the above-mentioned conditions are not satisfied[,] a need for a service in the case at issue? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must Article 15 of Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market and Articles 49, 56 and 106(2) TFEU be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which makes the authorisation of tobacco product outlets subject to compliance with pre-established criteria relating to the minimum geographical distance between suppliers and to the resident population, without allowing the competent public authority to assess other objective factual circumstances that demonstrate, even where the above-mentioned conditions are not satisfied[,] a need for a service in the case at issue?

---

(1)  
  OJ 2006 L 376, p. 36.

---
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 161/2014Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 161/2014 of 18 February 2014 entering a name in the register of protected designations            of origin and protected geographical indications [Bayerische Breze/Bayerische Brezn/Bayerische Brez’n/Bayerische Brezel (PGI)]         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 161/2014                     

# of 18 February 2014

# entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Bayerische Breze/Bayerische                        Brezn/Bayerische Brez’n/Bayerische Brezel (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, Germany’s application to register the name ‘Bayerische Breze’/‘Bayerische                              Brezn’/‘Bayerische Brez’n’/‘Bayerische Brezel’ 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                              ‘Bayerische Breze’/‘Bayerische Brezn’/‘Bayerische Brez’n’/‘Bayerische Brezel’ 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, 18 February 2014.

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

Dacian Cioloș                            

*Member of the Commission*                            

## ANNEXU.K.

Agricultural products and foodstuffs listed in Annex I(I) to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012:

### **Class 2.4.****Bread, pastry, cakes, confectionery, biscuits and other baker’s wares**U.K.

#### GERMANYU.K.

Bayerische Breze/Bayerische Brezn/Bayerische Brez’n/Bayerische Brezel (PGI)

1

OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.                           

2

OJ C 262, 11.9.2013, p. 13.
HARRINGTON v. GERALD.

No. COA07-1070.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed April 1, 2008.

Certification Date April 21, 2008.

Appeal from the New Hanover (07CVS1172).

Cases Reported Without Published Opinion. Affirmed.