alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1027/2014 (repealed)Show full title

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1027/2014 of 25 July 2014 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EC) No 1528/2007            applying the arrangements for products originating in certain states which are part of the African, Caribbean and Pacific            (ACP) Group of States provided for in agreements establishing, or leading to the establishment of, Economic Partnership Agreements,            as amended by Regulation (EU) No 527/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the exclusion of a number            of countries from the list of regions or states which have concluded negotiations (repealed)         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1027/2014                     

# of 25 July 2014

# amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EC) No 1528/2007 applying the arrangements for products originating in certain states                        which are part of the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) Group of States provided for in agreements establishing, or leading                        to the establishment of, Economic Partnership Agreements, as amended by Regulation (EU) No 527/2013 of the European Parliament                        and of the Council as regards the exclusion of a number of countries from the list of regions or states which have concluded                        negotiations (repealed)                     

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

Textual Amendments

F1Repealed by Regulation (EU) 2016/1076 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 applying the arrangements for products                                 originating in certain states which are part of the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) Group of States provided for in agreements                                 establishing, or leading to the establishment of, economic partnership agreements.
**Exhibit
      32.1**





**CERTIFICATION**





I,
      Robert
      Kaminski, Chief Executive Officer of Leiner Health Products Inc. (the
“Company”), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to the best of my knowledge:





(1)  The
      Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the annual period ended March
      25,
      2006, (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and




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





Dated:
                June 23, 2006/s/
                Robert KaminskiName:
                Robert KaminskiTitle:
                Chief Executive Officer
The NORTH CAROLINA STATE BAR v. Scott BREWER and Kenneth Honeycutt.

No. 288P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 11, 2007.

Katherine E. Jean, Counsel, David R. Johnson, Deputy Counsel, for State Bar.

James B. Maxwell, Durham, for Brewer.

Charles B. Brooks, II, Monroe, for Honeycutt.

Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ___, 644 S.E.2d 573.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 19th day of June 2007 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:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 11th day of October 2007."
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                5
<CIK>                    0000929649
<NAME>                   DIAMOND CABLE COMMUNICATIONS LTD
<MULTIPLIER>             1,000
<CURRENCY>               POUNDS STERLING

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                MAR-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                  1.5934
<CASH>                                        66,418
<SECURITIES>                                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 19,800
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (4,117)
<INVENTORY>                                        0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             102,745
<PP&E>                                       674,749
<DEPRECIATION>                             (160,024)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               710,184
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         86,378
<BONDS>                                      911,618
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<COMMON>                                       1,478
<OTHER-SE>                                 (289,290)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 710,184
<SALES>                                            0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              35,833
<CGS>                                              0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 45,159
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            26,057
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (44,257)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (44,257)
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                (44,257)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      0


</TABLE>
#### Travelers Property Casualty, Appellant, v Anthony Giorgio, Respondent.

[803 NYS2d 614]

In a subrogation action to recover certain damages paid by the plaintiff to its insureds, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (DiBlasi, J.), entered April 16, 2003, as granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, that branch of the motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.

On December 28, 1998, Anthony Roffi and Deborah Roffi (hereinafter the insureds) purchased certain real property (hereinafter the property) from the defendant. Subsequent thereto, water accumulation and flooding allegedly damaged the property. On August 14, 1999, following Hurricane Floyd, the insureds allegedly sustained additional damage from flooding, and filed a claim with the plaintiff for the loss sustained by them. As a result thereof, the plaintiff paid the insureds the sum of $54,321.76 and became subrogated to the insureds’ “rights, claims and interest. . . against any person ... for the loss mentioned above.”

In October 1999 the insureds commenced an action against the defendant and others. In October 2000 the plaintiff, as subrogee of the insureds, commenced the instant action to recover the sum of $54,321.76 that it paid to the insureds. In October 2001 the insureds settled their separate action with the defendant and signed a general release. Thereafter, the defendant moved, inter alia, for summary judgment dismissing the *1087complaint in the instant action. The Supreme Court granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. We reverse.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, in opposition to that branch of his motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, the plaintiff demonstrated the existence of a factual question on the issue of whether the defendant had notice of the plaintiffs subrogation rights at the time of the execution of the release *(see Ocean Acc. & Guar. Corp. v Hooker Electrochemical Co.,*240 NY 37, 46 [1925]; *United Healthcare Serv. Corp. v Schaumburg,*275 AD2d 410, 411 [2000]; *Silinsky v State-Wide Ins. Co.,*30 AD2d 1, 3-4 [1968]; *cf. Nationwide Ins. Co. v Mocchia,*243 AD2d 692 [1997]; *Blacharsh v Hartford Ins. Group,*104 AD2d 839 [1984]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for summary judgment.

The defendant’s contention at oral argument that the Court of Appeals in *Weinberg v Transamerica Ins. Co.*(62 NY2d 379 [1984]) abrogated the notice requirement discussed, *supra,*is without merit *(id.*at 384 n 4). Florio, J.P., Schmidt, Luciano and Rivera, JJ., concur.
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



I, Lauren P. Silvernail, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of ISTA Pharmaceuticals, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and
Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2004 fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of ISTA Pharmaceuticals, Inc.



|                   |  |  |  |                                                                                          
|------------------ |  |  |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                   |  | 
|Date: May 10, 2004 |  |  |  | /s/ Lauren P. Silvernail                                                                 
|                   |  |  |  |                                                                                          
|                   |  |  |  | Lauren P. Silvernail                                                                     
|                   |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer, Chief Accounting Officer & Vice President, Corporate Development
1947-1


Western Pacific Airlines, Inc.
2864 South Circle Drive
Suite 1100
Colorado Springs, CO  80906


Subject:          Letter Agreement No. 1947-1 to
                  Purchase Agreement No. 1947 --
                  Disclosure of Confidential Information


This Letter Agreement  amends Purchase  Agreement No. 1947 dated as of even date
herewith (the Agreement) between The Boeing Company (Boeing) and Western Pacific
Airlines, Inc. (Buyer) relating to Model 737-300 aircraft (the Aircraft).

All terms used herein and in the Agreement,  and not defined  herein,  will have
the same meaning as in the Agreement.

1. Buyer understands that certain commercial and financial information contained
in the documents listed below  (Confidential  Documents) is considered by Boeing
as confidential.

2.  Buyer  agrees  that  it  will  treat  the  Confidential  Documents  and  the
information  contained  therein as confidential  and will not, without the prior
written  consent  of  Boeing,   disclose  such  Confidential  Documents  or  any
information  contained  therein to any other  person or entity  except as may be
required  by (i)  applicable  law  or  governmental  regulations,  or  (ii)  for
financing  the Aircraft in accordance  with the  provisions of Article 10 of the
Agreement.

3. In  connection  with  any  such  disclosure  or  filing  of the  Confidential
Documents,  or the information contained therein pursuant to any such applicable
law or governmental  regulation,  Buyer will request and use its best reasonable
efforts to obtain confidential  treatment of such Confidential Documents and the
information  contained therein.  Boeing agrees to cooperate with Buyer in making
and supporting its request for confidential treatment.


P.A. No. 1947
K/WPA


<PAGE>


Western Pacific Airlines, Inc.
1947-1            Page 2

                       Schedule of Confidential Documents


1.       Letter Agreement No. 6-1162-JDR-393.
2.       Letter Agreement No. 6-1162-JDR-394.
3.       Letter Agreement No. 6-1162-JDR-395.
4.       Letter Agreement No. 6-1162-JDR-396.
5.       Letter Agreement No. 6-1162-JDR-397.
6.       Letter Agreement No. 6-1162-JDR-398.
7.       Letter Agreement No. 6-1162-JDR-399.
8.       Letter Agreement No. 6-1162-JDR-400.
9.       Letter Agreement No. 6-1162-JDR-401.
10.      Letter Agreement No. 6-1162-JDR-418.



Very truly yours,

THE BOEING COMPANY



By
  ----------------------
Its     Attorney-In-Fact


ACCEPTED AND AGREED TO this

Date:                    , 1996


WESTERN PACIFIC AIRLINES, INC.



By  --------------------------

Its


P.A. No. 1947
K/WPA


<PAGE>
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
           EXHIBIT 11 - STATEMENT RE COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                      (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)
                                   (UNAUDITED)


                                            FOR THE THREE            FOR THE NINE
                                            MONTHS ENDED             MONTHS ENDED
                                            SEPTEMBER 30,            SEPTEMBER 30,
                                          -------------------     -------------------
                                            1995        1996        1995        1996
                                          -------     -------     -------     -------
<S>                                       <C>         <C>         <C>         <C>    
Per Share Data:
     Net income                           $ 3,155     $ 3,934     $ 7,882     $11,142
                                          =======     =======     =======     =======
     Net income per common and common
     equivalent shares, primary           $  0.34     $  0.41     $  0.86     $  1.17
                                          =======     =======     =======     =======
     Net income per common and common
     equivalent shares, fully diluted     $  0.33     $  0.41     $  0.86     $  1.17
                                          =======     =======     =======     =======
WEIGHTED AVERAGE NUMBER OF
COMMON AND COMMON
EQUIVALENT SHARES:

Primary:
     Weighted average number of
     common shares outstanding              8,909       8,991       8,590       8,943

     Common equivalent shares:
              Options                         478         613         580         567
                                          -------     -------     -------     -------
                                            9,387       9,604       9,170       9,510
                                          =======     =======     =======     =======
Fully diluted:
     Weighted average number of
     common shares outstanding              8,909       8,991       8,590       8,943

     Common equivalent shares:
              Options                         516         637         595         593
                                          -------     -------     -------     -------
                                            9,425       9,628       9,185       9,536
                                          =======     =======     =======     =======

</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 32**

SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned hereby certifies in his or her capacity as an officer of MSB Financial, Inc. (the "Registrant") that the
Quarterly Report of the Registrant on Form 10-QSB for the period ended December 31, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the
information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financial condition of the Registrant at the end of such period and the results of operations of the
Registrant for such period

|Date: February 13, 2004 |  | /s/ Charles B. CookCharles B. CookPresident and Chief Executive Officer
|----------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: February 13, 2004 |  | /s/ Elaine R. CarbaryElaine R. CarbaryChief Financial Officer
STATE of North Carolina v. Russell William TUCKER.

No. 113A96-3.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 23, 2007.

John D. Bryson, High Point, Robert L. McClellan, Greensboro, for Tucker.

A. Danielle Marquis, Special Deputy Attorney General, Thomas J. Keith, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 8th day of September 2006 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Forsyth County, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court of that County:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 23rd day of August 2007."
IN RE L.W.

No. COA07-544.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed October 16, 2007.

Certification Date November 5, 2007.

Appeal from Person (04J24).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 383/2014Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 383/2014 of 2 April 2014 entering a name in the register of protected designations            of origin and protected geographical indications (Beurre de Bresse (PDO))         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 383/2014                     

# of 2 April 2014

# entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Beurre de Bresse                        (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)Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, France's application to register the name ‘Beurre de Bresse’                              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                              ‘Beurre de Bresse’ 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, 2 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 1.5. Oils and fats (butter, margarine, oils, etc.)**U.K.

#### FRANCEU.K.

Beurre de Bresse (PDO)

1

OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.                           

2

OJ C 335, 16.11.2013, p. 22.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13

- 30793 Summary Calendar

JAMES TYLER , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
JIMMY SMITH , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana USDC No. 3:12

- CV

- 222

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
J ames Tyler, Louisiana prisoner # 372199 , filed and subsequently
amended a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit against three officials of the Louisiana State Penitentiary. The relevant portion of the complaint was that Colonel Jimmy Smith used excessive force b y sadistically and maliciously spray ing Tyler with mace while he was locked in his cell because Tyler had written a letter complaining about prison personnel. Smith moved for summary

* 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. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED March 26, 2014 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 13-30793 Document: 00512573985 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/26/2014No. 13

- 30793

judgment, asserting qualified immunity among other things. The district court denied the motion finding that Tyler’s verified complaint and summary

judgment affidavits established a genuine issue of material fact “regarding whether [Tyler] sustained an injury, the need for the application of force, the relationship between the need and use of force, the threat perceived by [Smith] and efforts made to temper the severity of the response.” Smith appeals the denial of h is summary judgment motion based on quali fied immunity. The denial of summary judgment based upon qualified immunity is a collateral order that may be an appealable final decision

. Mitchell v. Forsyth , 472 U.S. 511, 530 (1985). However, the court’s jurisdiction to review the denial is “significantly limited,” extending to questions of law only. Kinney v. Weaver , 367 F.3d 337, 346 (5th Cir. 2004) (en banc). When prison officials stand accused of using excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment, “the core judicial inquiry is . . . whether force was applied in a go od

- faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and sadistically to cause harm.” Hudson v. McMillian , 503 U.S. 1, 6

- 7 (1992). Smith concedes that he released mace into Tyler’s cell , but he argues that there is no evidence other than Tyl er’s allegations that he acted with a culpable state of mind. Th is argument is directed to the truth of t he verified allegations made by Tyler that Smith acted without provocation and with malicious intent. See Kinney , 367 F.3d at 346. A ccordingly, the court does not have jurisdiction to review the district court’s conclusion that there was a genuine factual dispute whether Smith used excessive force. Tyler ’s motion to dismiss the appeal or, alternatively , stay the proceedings because Smith did not comp ly with Federal Rule of Appellate
Procedure 10 is DENIED. APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION DENIED

.

2 Case: 13-30793 Document: 00512573985 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/26/2014