alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1110/2014Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1110/2014 of 20 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 1110/2014                     

# of 20 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, 20 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.
##### 



Exhibit 99.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of T-NETIX, Inc. on
Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2003, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission, I, Henry G. Schopfer
III, Chief Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:



| | 1. |  | The Quarterly Report fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and                                     
| | -- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| | 2. |  | The information contained in this
Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and
results of operation of T-NETIX, Inc.

|             |  |     |  |                        
|------------ |  | --- |  | -----------------------
|May 13, 2003 |  | /s/ |  | Henry G. Schopfer III  
|             |  |    
|             |  |     |  | Henry G. Schopfer III  
|             |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer
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.                  

###### Medicare Payment Advisory Commission

# AGENCY:

Medicare Payment Advisory Commission.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting. 

# SUMMARY:

                        The Commission will hold its next public meeting on Thursday, September 8, 2005, and Friday, September 9, 2005, at the Ronald Reagan Building, International Trade Center, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The meeting is tentatively scheduled to begin at 11 a.m. on September 8, and at 9:15 a.m. on September 9.                              ( print page 53029)    

Topics for discussion include findings on two congressionally mandated studies: home health margins, and payments for oncology drugs and administration services in the Medicare system. The Commission will also discuss issues related to the Medicare wage index, outpatient therapy, valuing services in the physician fee schedule, and physician resource use. The Commission will also host a panel on quality measures in managed care organizations.

                        Agendas will be e-mailed approximately one week prior to the meeting. The final agenda will be available on the Commission's Web site (                        *http://www.medpac.gov*).                    

                        This will be the last notice placed in the                         **Federal Register**                         by the Commission. We will continue to e-mail meeting agendas, which you can sign up to receive at                         *http://www.medpac.gov.*                         They will also be posted on our Web site. In addition, we will now e-mail a meeting notice two weeks prior to the meeting date. If you have any comments on this action, please contact Annissa McDonald at                         *amcdonald@medpac.gov*                         or (202) 220-3700.                    

# ADDRESSES:

MedPAC's address is: 601 New Jersey Avenue, NW., Suite 9000, Washington, DC 20001. The telephone number is (202) 220-3700.

Mark E. Miller,

Executive Director.

[FR Doc. 05-17567 Filed 9-2-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6820-BW-M
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 273/2014Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 273/2014 of 17 March 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 273/2014                     

# of 17 March 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, 17 March 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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          95,879
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  584,103
<ALLOWANCES>                                     7,051
<INVENTORY>                                  1,910,034
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,711,450
<PP&E>                                         774,327
<DEPRECIATION>                                 621,294
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,076,182
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,683,154
<BONDS>                                        348,874
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        10,234
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,033,920
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,076,182
<SALES>                                      2,752,293
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,881,087
<CGS>                                        1,697,052
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,955,834
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               779,815
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             111,815
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 33,623
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             33,623
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    33,623
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00
        

</TABLE>
STATE v. LINCOLN.

No. COA06-1431.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed July 3, 2007.

Certification Date July 23, 2007.

Appeal from the Wake (97CRS30316, 97CRS30317).

Case reported without published opinion. No error in 97CRS30316; Remanded for new sentencing hearing in 97CRS30317.
6-1162-JDR-418


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


Subject:          Letter Agreement No. 6-1162-JDR-418 to
                  Purchase Agreement No. 1947 --
                  Board of Directors Approval


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.       Board of Directors Approval.

         It is  recognized  that Buyer must obtain  approval for the purchase of
the Aircraft from Buyer's Board of  Directors.  Accordingly,  Buyer will use its
best efforts to obtain such Board of Directors  approval as soon as  practicable
and will advise Boeing promptly after such approval has been obtained. If Boeing
has not  received  written  notice from Buyer on or before  August 28, 1996 that
such approval has been obtained,  either party will have the right,  exercisable
by  written  notice  given to the  other  within 10 days  after  such  date,  to
terminate the purchase of the Aircraft.

2.       Effect of Termination.

         If there is any termination  under the above provision,  all rights and
obligations  of Boeing and Buyer with respect to the Aircraft will terminate and
be without further force and effect, except that (i) Boeing will promptly refund
to Buyer, without interest,  all advance payments theretofore received by Boeing
from Buyer  pursuant to the  Agreement  with  respect to the  Aircraft  and (ii)
Letter  Agreement  1947-1 will survive such termination and remain in full force
and effect.


P.A. No. 1947
K/WPA


<PAGE>


Western Pacific Airlines, Inc.
6-1162-JDR-418   Page 2


3.       Confidentiality.

         Buyer  understands  that certain  commercial and financial  information
contained in this Letter  Agreement are  considered  by Boeing as  confidential.
Buyer  agrees  that it will  treat this  Letter  Agreement  and the  information
contained herein as confidential and will not, without the prior written consent
of Boeing, disclose this Letter Agreement or any information contained herein to
any other person or entity, except as provided in Letter Agreement 1947-1.

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>
Exhibit 10.3   Promissory Note Between Floridino's Inc. and
               Raffles Toho Inc.


                         PROMISSORY NOTE

On the 31st day of August 1999, Floridino's Inc., agrees to pay
Raffles Toho, Inc., Seventy two thousand one Hundred ninety seven
dollars and no cents ($72,197.00) at the rate of 8.25 percent per
annum.  A balloon payment will be due on the 1st day of
September,
2000.



                                  ____________________________
                                  Nick Pirgousis, President
                                  Floridino's Inc.
MONGER v. DURHAM HOUSING AUTHORITY.

No. COA07-1187.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed May 20, 2008.

Certification Date June 9, 2008.

Appeal from NC Industrial Commission (I.C. NO. 366828).

Cases reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
# C_2023045EN.01002101.xml

| 6.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/21

---

Action brought on 8 December 2022 — Azalee Cosmetics v EUIPO — L’Oréal (UK) (LA CRÈME LIBRE)

(Case T-765/22)

(2023/C 45/29)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Azalee Cosmetics (Paris, France) (represented by: I. Tribouillet, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: L’Oréal (UK) Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative trade mark LA CREME LIBRE — Application for registration No 18 252 904

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 October 2022 in Case R 229/2022-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and the other party to the proceeding before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs and reimburse the applicant for all the costs incurred for the purposes of the opposition and appeal proceedings, including the costs of the appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the other party to the proceeding before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs and reimburse the applicant for all the costs incurred for the purposes of the opposition and appeal proceedings, including the costs of the appeal.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3692 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3692

                  To rescind Treasury Notice 2008-83.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           November 19, 2008

  Mr. Sanders introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
                  To rescind Treasury Notice 2008-83.

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

SECTION 1. RESCISSION OF TREASURY NOTICE 2008-83.

    Treasury Notice 2008-83 (suspending the rule in section 382 of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 that disallows use of a net unrealized 
built-in loss for financial institutions) is considered null and void 
and of no effect. The Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall be applied 
and administered as if Treasury Notice 2008-83 had never been issued.
                                 <all>
```
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL

AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, 

v.

KIM C. KRISTOFF, Petitioner. 

No. 1 CA-CR 22-0374 PRPC 

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2017-151263-001 

The Honorable Kathleen H. Mead, Judge, Retired

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix

By Quinton S. Gregory

Counsel for Respondent 

Curry, Pearson & Wooten, P.L.C., Phoenix

By Kristen Curry

Counsel for Petitioner

FILED 4-20-2023
STATE v. KRISTOFF

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Vice Chief Judge David B. Gass, Judge Brian Y. Furuya, and Judge Andrew 

M. Jacobs delivered the decision of the court.

PER CURIAM:

¶1 Petitioner Kris C. Kristoff seeks review of the superior court’s 

order denying his petition for post-conviction relief. This is petitioner’s first 

petition.

¶2 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this court will 

not disturb a superior court’s ruling on a petition for post-conviction relief. 

State v. Gutierrez, 229 Ariz. 573, 577, ¶ 19, 278 P.3d 1276, 1280 (2012). It is 

petitioner’s burden to show that the superior court abused its discretion by 

denying the petition for post-conviction relief. See State v. Poblete, 227 Ariz. 

537, ¶ 1, 260 P.3d 1102, 1103 (App. 2011) (petitioner has burden of 

establishing abuse of discretion on review).

¶3 We have reviewed the record in this matter, the superior 

court’s order denying the petition for post-conviction relief, the petition for 

review, the response, and the reply. We find that petitioner has not 

established an abuse of discretion. 

¶4 We grant review and deny relief.
#### In the Matter of Juan Molina, Petitioner, v Donald Selsky, as Director of Special Housing and Inmate Disciplinary Programs, Respondent.

[801 NYS2d 425]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of the Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging a determination finding him guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rule that prohibits the unauthorized use of a controlled substance after his urine twice tested positive for the presence of opiates. We are unpersuaded by petitioner’s contention that the integrity of the urine sample was compromised. The testimony of the correction officer who obtained the urine sample from petitioner and the request for urinalysis test form establish that proper collection procedures were followed and that the chain of custody remained intact during the collection and testing process *(see*7 NYCRR 1020.4 [d], [e]; *Matter of Pollard v Goord,*18 AD3d 1041, 1041-1042 [2005]; *Matter of Saif’Ul’Bait v Goord,*15 AD3d 703, 705 [2005]). Furthermore, the record fails to support petitioner’s contention that the urine specimen was tampered with or confused with another sample *(see Matter of Pollard v Goord, supra; Matter of Saif’Ul’Bait v Goord, supra).*Inasmuch as the misbehavior report, positive urinalysis test results, supporting documentation and testimony at the hearing provide substantial evidence to support the de*1239termination of guilt, it will not be disturbed *(see Matter of El v Selsky,*14 AD3d 763, 764 [2005]). Petitioner’s remaining contentions, including his claim of hearing officer bias and that he was denied documentary evidence, have been reviewed and found to be without merit.

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Carpinello, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.