alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1369/2014Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1369/2014 of 17 December 2014 approving non-minor amendments to the specification            for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Garda (PDO)]         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1369/2014                     

# of 17 December 2014

# approving non-minor amendments to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin                        and protected geographical indications [Garda (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)By virtue of the first subparagraph of Article 53(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, the Commission has examined Italy's                              application for the approval of amendments to the specification for the protected designation of origin ‘Garda’, registered                              under Commission Regulation (EC) No 2325/97(2).

(2)Since the amendments in question are not minor within the meaning of Article 53(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, the Commission                              published the amendment application in the *Official Journal of the European Union* (3) as required by Article 50(2)(a) of that Regulation.

(3)As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the amendments                              to the specification should be approved,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

The amendments to the specification published in the *Official Journal of the European Union* regarding the name ‘Garda’ (PDO) are hereby approved.                  

# 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, 17 December 2014.

*For the Commission,*                            

*On behalf of the President,*                            

Phil Hogan                            

*Member of the Commission*                            

1

OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.                           

2

Commission Regulation (EC) No 2325/97 of 24 November 1997 (OJ L 322, 25.11.1997, p. 33-35).                           

3

OJ C 260, 9.8.2014, p. 17.
#### Morgan Services, Inc., Appellant, v Sandra Abrams, Doing Business as The Dudley, Respondent.

[801 NYS2d 457]

*1285Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Donna M. Siwek, J.), entered September 7, 2004 in a breach of contract action. The order granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the motion is denied and the complaint is reinstated.

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action alleging that defendant breached her contract with plaintiff, pursuant to which plaintiff agreed to provide linen items for use in defendant’s business. By its terms, the contract was to expire 60 months from the date of the first delivery, but defendant terminated the contract approximately 72 weeks into the contractual period. We agree with plaintiff that Supreme Court erred in granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. In support of her motion, defendant contended that the contract was not delivered to her. It is well settled, however, that “[a] binding contract . . . may be made without a physical delivery of the instrument evidencing the contract” *(Birch v*McNall, 19 AD2d 850, 850 [1963]; *see Bohlen Indus. of N. Am. v Flint Oil & Gas,*106 AD2d 909, 910 [1984]). Indeed, “ ‘[a]ny evidence that shows that the parties to a written instrument intend that the same should be operative and binding upon them is sufficient in an action to enforce its provisions’ ” *(Birch,*19 AD2d at 850, quoting *Sarasohn v Kamaiky,*193 NY 203, 214 [1908]). “It is basic, of course, that a contract requires an offer and acceptance, and where the parties have agreed that delivery is essential to the making of a contract, there is no agreement without it” *(Bohlen Indus. of N. Am.,*106 AD2d at 910, citing *Schwartz v Greenberg,*304 NY 250 [1952]). Here, defendant failed to meet her burden on the motion by establishing as a matter of law that the parties “agreed that delivery [was] essential to the making of [the] contract” *(id.).*Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Hurlbutt, Gorski, Pine and Hayes, JJ.
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18
- 7444
DUPREE EVANS, a/k/a Dupree R. Evans, #149521 , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. WARDEN LIEBER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION , Respondent

– Appellee , and
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA , Respondent

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

. Terry L. Wooten, Senior District Judge. ( 4:17

- cv - 02085

- TLW )

Submitted : May 29, 2019 Decided: June 11, 2019
Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion

. Dupree Evans , Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Dupree Evans seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appeala bility. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prison er satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322,
3 36

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Sla ck , 529 U.S. at
484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Evans has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
STATE of North Carolina v. Donovan Hugh BERRY.

No. 66P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 10, 2008.

Geoffrey Hosford, Wilmington, for Berry.

Anita LeVeaux, Assistant Attorney General, Seth Edwards, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 19th day of February 2008 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 10th day of April 2008."
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1050/2013Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1050/2013 of 28 October 2013 establishing the standard import values for determining            the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1050/2013                     

# of 28 October 2013

# 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, 28 October 2013.

*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.
ELLISON v. GAMBILL OIL, et al.

No. 541A07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 3, 2008.

Forrest A. Ferrell, Hickory, Jason White, for Kate H. Ellison.

Stephen L. Palmer, Hickory, for Palmer.

Jimmy D. Reeves, M. Alexander Reeves, West Jefferson, for Gambill.

Frank C. Wilson, III, Boone, for Gosai & B & B.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 3rd day of June 2008 by Plaintiff for Extension of Time to File Brief:

"Motion Allowed. Plaintiff (Kate H. Ellison) shall have up to and including the 11th day of August 2008 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court. By order of the Court in conference this the 3rd day of June 2008."
Exhibit 10.1


 


AMENDMENT TO THE

WASTE CONNECTIONS, INC.

NONQUALIFIED DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN


WHEREAS, Waste Connections,
Inc., an Ontario corporation (the “Employer”), has previously established the Waste Connections, Inc. Nonqualified
Deferred Compensation Plan (the “Plan”) for the benefit of a select group of management or highly compensated
employees and directors; and


WHEREAS, the Employer
most recently amended and restated the Plan effective December 1, 2014; and


WHEREAS, the Employer
desires to clarify the type of bonus compensation that is subject to deferral under the Plan; and


NOW, THEREFORE,
pursuant to Section 11.2 of the Plan, the following amendment is hereby made, and shall be effective on the date executed below.


		1.	Section 1.9 of the Plan is hereby amended (underline showing additions), to be and read as follows:



“1.9“Bonus”
shall mean any compensation, in addition to Base Salary, Commissions and LTIP Amounts, earned by a Participant for services rendered
during a Plan Year, under any Employer’s annual bonus and cash incentive plans. For clarification purposes, the term “Bonus”
shall only include bonus and cash incentive plans that are calculated based on a period of at least twelve (12) months and shall
exclude any bonus and cash incentive compensation that is paid based on any period of time shorter than a twelve (12) month period,
including, but not limited to, amounts paid under the Synergy Bonus Program.”


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Employer has
caused this instrument to be executed this 19th day of July, 2016.





	 	WASTE CONNECTIONS, INC.
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/ Ronald
                                         J. Mittelstaedt                    




	 	Its:	Chief Executive Officer
STATE of North Carolina v. Vincent Todd CARPENTER.

No. 551P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 24, 2008.

Vincent T. Carpenter, Pro Se.

Daniel P. O'Brien, Assistant Attorney General, John Snyder, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 12th day of December 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 24th day of January 2008."
STATE v. Samuel TALLEY.

No. 111P07-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 8, 2007.

Robert Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, Sam Currin, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 20th day of September 2007 by Defendant for Review:

"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference this the 8th day of November 2007."
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

      Schedule of Year-To-Date Principal and Interest Distributions
                                  to 
                         Certificate Holders

                                                       Ending
Class          Interest       Principal       Losses   Balance
<S>            <C>            <C>             <C>      <C> 
A1              7,265,377.25    29,242,759.02   0.00   214,888,240.98
A2                847,409.35     5,671,038.65   0.00    21,828,961.34
A3                947,374.98             0.00   0.00    27,500,000.00
A4                284,776.26             0.00   0.00     7,645,000.00
A5                354,499.98             0.00   0.00    10,000,000.00
AIO             1,072,999.98             0.00   0.00             0.00
B1A               486,021.67             0.00   0.00    13,846,000.00
B1F               156,458.70             0.00   0.00     3,966,000.00
M1A               602,109.74             0.00   0.00    18,948,000.00
M1F               175,716.60             0.00   0.00     4,801,000.00
M2A               478,533.84             0.00   0.00    14,575,000.00
M2F                78,613.20             0.00   0.00     2,088,000.00
RI                      0.00             0.00   0.00             0.00
RII                     0.00             0.00   0.00             0.00
RIII                    0.00             0.00   0.00             0.00
S1A                     0.02             0.00   0.00             0.00
S1F                     0.00             0.00   0.00             0.00





</TABLE>
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3721 

To prohibit the use of funds to transfer individuals detained by the United 

States at Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the United States 

Disciplinary Barracks, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 8 (legislative day, NOVEMBER 20), 2008 

Mr. BROWNBACK introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To prohibit the use of funds to transfer individuals detained 

by the United States at Naval Station, Guantanamo 

Bay, Cuba, to the United States Disciplinary Barracks, 

Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. 

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


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
2 

•S 3721 IS

1 SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS TO TRANSFER 

2 INDIVIDUALS DETAINED AT GUANTANAMO 

3 BAY, CUBA, TO THE UNITED STATES DISCIPLI4 NARY BARRACKS, FORT LEAVENWORTH, KAN5 SAS. 

6 None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 

7 available to any Federal department or agency may be 

8 used to transfer any individual detained by the United 

9 States at Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the 

10 United States Disciplinary Barracks, Fort Leavenworth, 

11 Kansas. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
Exhibit 99.5














CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS






We hereby consent to the use of and reference to our name and to the use of extracts from our report dated February 10, 2011, evaluating the proved and probable reserves of Compton Petroleum Corporation, as of December 31, 2010, in Compton Petroleum Corporation’s Annual Report on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2010.




Yours truly,



GLJ Petroleum Consultants Ltd.By:
/s/Myron J. Hladyshevsky, P. Eng.Myron J. Hladyshevsky, P. Eng.

Vice-President




Calgary, Alberta


February 14, 2011


















CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS
  We hereby consent to the use of and reference to our name and to the use of extracts from our report dated February 10, 2011, evaluating the proved and probable reserves of Compton Petroleum Corporation, as of December 31, 2010, in Compton Petroleum Corporation’s Annual Report on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2010.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND> THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM 
THE COMPANY'S CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE QUARTER ENDED NOVEMBER 
30, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL 
STATEMENTS. 
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000930404
<NAME> MVE HOLDINGS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         FEB-28-1997
<PERIOD-END>                              NOV-30-1996
<CASH>                                          9,933 
<SECURITIES>                                        0 
<RECEIVABLES>                                  32,631 
<ALLOWANCES>                                    (989) 
<INVENTORY>                                    28,752 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               76,546       
<PP&E>                                         43,783      
<DEPRECIATION>                               (13,958)    
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                156,068      
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          37,956    
<BONDS>                                       141,680  
<COMMON>                                            2 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          47,000 
<PREFERRED>                                     8,331 
<OTHER-SE>                                          0       
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  156,068         
<SALES>                                        47,491          
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    0          
<CGS>                                          33,834          
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       0          
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               11,070       
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0      
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              4,211       
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (1,624)       
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (650)      
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (974)      
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0  
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0      
<CHANGES>                                     (1,677)  
<NET-INCOME>                                  (2,651) 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       0 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       0 
        

</TABLE>
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

July 31, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

130249 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

WILLARD P. WILCOX, GORDON W. Robert P. Young, Jr. 

WILCOX, THEODORE W. WILCOX, Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices DAVID W. PALMER and CAROLYN 

P. SHAH, 

Plaintiffs-Appellees, 

v SC: 130249 

 COA: 261139 

Antrim CC: 04-008041-CZ 

ELK RAPIDS TOWNSHIP and 

ELK RAPIDS TOWNSHIP BOARD, 

Defendants-Appellants, 

and 

ELK RAPIDS SPORTSMAN’S CLUB, INC.,

 Intervening Defendant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 22, 2005 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

p0724 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

July 31, 2006 

 Clerk
VI 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 416 

For the relief of Denes Fulop and Gyorgyi Fulop. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 29, 2007 

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

referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

For the relief of Denes Fulop and Gyorgyi Fulop. 

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

3 SECTION 1. ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provi5 sion of law or any order, for the purposes of the Immigra6 tion and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.), Denes 

7 Fulop and Gyorgyi Fulop shall be deemed to have been 

8 lawfully admitted to, and remained in, the United States, 

9 and shall be eligible for issuance of an immigrant visa or 

10 for adjustment of status under section 245 of the Immi11 gration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1255). 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
2 

•S 416 IS

1 (b) APPLICATION AND PAYMENT OF FEES.—Sub2 section (a) shall apply only if the applications for issuance 

3 of immigrant visas or the applications for adjustment of 

4 status are filed with appropriate fees within 2 years after 

5 the date of enactment of this Act. 

6 (c) REDUCTION OF IMMIGRANT VISA NUMBERS.— 

7 Upon the granting of immigrant visas to Denes Fulop and 

8 Gyorgyi Fulop, the Secretary of State shall instruct the 

9 proper officer to reduce by 2, during the current or subse10 quent fiscal year, the total number of immigrant visas that 

11 are made available to natives of the country of the aliens’ 

12 birth under section 202(e) or 203(a) of the Immigration 

13 and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1152(e), 1153(a)), as appli14 cable. 

Æ 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
STATE v. STANLEY.

No. COA07-867.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed April 15, 2008.

Certification Date May 5, 2008.

Appeal from Forsyth (04CRS55796).

Cases reported without published opinion. No error.
NAIK v. HR PROVIDENCE ROAD, LLC.

No. COA07-1285.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed June 3, 2008.

Certification Date June 23, 2008.

Appeal from Mecklenburg (07CVS3548).

Case Reported Without Published Opinion. Affirmed.