alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Commission Regulation (EU) No 1081/2014Show full title

Commission Regulation (EU) No 1081/2014 of 13 October 2014 establishing a prohibition of fishing for hake in VIIIa, VIIIb,            VIIId and VIIIe by vessels flying the flag of Belgium         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Regulation (EU) No 1081/2014                     

# of 13 October 2014

# establishing a prohibition of fishing for hake in VIIIa, VIIIb, VIIId and VIIIe by vessels flying the flag of Belgium

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring                           compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy(1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Council Regulation (EU) No 43/2014(2), lays down quotas for 2014.

(2)According to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation                              by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for                              2014.

(3)It is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

## Article 1U.K.Quota exhaustion

The fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein                     for 2014 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.                  

## Article 2U.K.Prohibitions

Fishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in                     the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited                     to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.                  

## Article 3U.K.Entry into force

This Regulation shall enter into force on the 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, 13 October 2014.

*For the Commission,*                            

*On behalf of the President,*                            

Lowri Evans                            

*Director-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries*                            

## ANNEXU.K.

1

OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.                           

2

Council Regulation (EU) No 43/2014 of 20 January 2014 fixing for 2014 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and                              groups of fish stocks, applicable in Union waters and, to Union vessels, in certain non-Union waters (OJ L 24, 28.1.2014, p. 1).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Registrant's financial statements as of and for the year ended September 30,
2000 and is qualified in its entirety to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                       1,030,722
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,343,878
<ALLOWANCES>                                   255,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,444,955
<PP&E>                                       1,118,625
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              10,318,281
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,359,136
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        57,120
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,742,325
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                10,318,281
<SALES>                                     41,676,587
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            41,676,587
<CGS>                                       31,182,678
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               31,182,678
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             9,487,107
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             300,892
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                705,910
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (340,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,045,910
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,045,910
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.21
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.20


</TABLE>
Exhibit 24.1




Puradyn Filter Technologies, Incorporated
3020 High Ridge Road, Suite 100
Boynton Beach, FL 33426

                          INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S CONSENT

Ladies and Gentlemen:

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement of Puradyn Filter Technologies, Incorporated on Form S-8 of our
reports, dated March 5, 1999 and February 24, 2000 on the financial statements
of the Company, as of December 31, 1998 and 1999 and for the years then ended,
respectively, included in the Company's 1998 and 1999 Annual Reports on Form
10-KSB.



                                                    Durland & Company, LLP

Palm Beach, Florida
April 6, 2000
CORBETT v. GRAY.

No. COA07-1239.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed June 3, 2008.

Certification Date June 23, 2008.

Appeal from Wake (05CVS3310).

Case Reported Without Published Opinion. Reversed and remanded.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 362 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 362

    To expand the number of embryonic stem cell lines available for 
                       federally funded research.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 23, 2007

  Mr. Coleman introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
  referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To expand the number of embryonic stem cell lines available for 
                       federally funded research.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Stem Cell Research Expansion Act''.

SEC. 2. PROVISION OF FEDERAL FUNDING.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
Department of Health and Human Services may provide funding for the 
following:
            (1) Research on embryonic stem cell lines that were created 
        prior to January 23, 2006 that does not result in the use of 
        Federal funding to destroy an embryo or embryos.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit32**

 

**The following statement is being made to the Securities andExchange Commission solely for purposes of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1349), which carries with it certain criminal penaltiesin the event of a knowing or willful misrepresentation.**

 

 

Securities and ExchangeCommission

450 Fifth Street, NW

Washington, DC  20549

 

Re:  Centiv,Inc.

 

Ladies and Gentlemen:

 

In accordance with the requirements of Section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 USC 1349), each of the undersigned herebycertifies that:

 

(i)            this Annual Report on Form 10-Kfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

 

(ii)           the information contained in thisAnnual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of Centiv, Inc.

 

Dated as of this 28th dayof April, 2004.

 

 

 
| /s/  Mak Wai Keung Shawn          |   | /s/                      | Lau Kwok Hung |
|----------------------------------------|--------|--------------------------|---------------|
| Mak  Wai Keung Shawn                   |   |                     | Lau Kwok Hung |
| President and Chief  Executive Officer |   | Chief  Financial Officer |

 

1

----
STATE of North Carolina v. Terry Alvin HYATT.

No. 402A00-3.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 6, 2007.

M. Gordon Widenhouse, Chapel Hill, Faith S. Bushnaq, for Terry Alvin Hyatt.

for Terry Alvin Hyatt.

Valerie B. Spalding, Special Deputy Attorney General, Ronald L. Moore, District Attorney, for State of NC.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 7th day of November 2005 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Buncombe 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 6th day of December 2007."
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 880/2013Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 880/2013 of 13 September 2013 amending for the 201st time Council Regulation (EC)            No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with the            Al Qaida network         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 880/2013                     

# of 13 September 2013

# amending for the 201st time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against                        certain persons and entities associated with the Al Qaida network                     

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed                           against certain persons and entities associated with the Al-Qaida network,(1) and in particular Article 7(1)(a) and 7a(5) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 lists the persons, groups and entities covered by the freezing of funds and economic                              resources under that Regulation.

(2)On 4 September 2013 the Sanctions Committee of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) decided to remove one entity from                              its list of persons, groups and entities to whom the freezing of funds and economic resources should apply after considering                              a de-listing request submitted by this entity and the Comprehensive Report of the Ombudsperson established pursuant to UNSC                              Resolution 1904(2009).

(3)Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 should therefore be updated accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.

# Article 2U.K.

This Regulation shall enter into force on the 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, 13 September 2013.

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

*Head of the Service for Foreign Policy Instruments*                            

## ANNEXU.K.

Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 is amended as follows:

The following entry under the heading ‘Legal persons, groups and entities’ is deleted:

‘Lajnat Al Daawa Al Islamiya (alias (a) LDI, (b) Lajnat Al Dawa, (c) Islamic Missionary Commission). Address: (a) Afghanistan,                        (b) Pakistan. Other information: Associated with the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group. Date of designation referred to in Article                        2a (4) (b): 20.2.2003.’                  

1

OJ L 139, 29.5.2002, p. 9.
STATE v. CARTER

No. COA07-628

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed February 19, 2008.

Certification Date March 10, 2008.

Appeal from Alamance (06CRS50061).

Decision without published opinion. No error.
In the Matter of Appeal of Tyleta MORGAN.

No. 582A07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 2, 2008.

Charles C. Meeker, Benn A. Brewington, III, Raleigh, for Henderson County.

Paul A. Meyer, Raleigh, for NC Asso. County Commissioners.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 2nd day of April 2008 by Appellee (Tyleta Morgan) to Reschedule Oral Argument:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference this the 2nd day of April 2008."
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements of NovaDel Pharma Inc. on previously filed Forms S-8 (File Nos. 333-42103 and 333-116665) and Forms S-3/S-3A (File Nos. 333-140054, 333-126489, 333-135902 and 333-134028) of our report dated February 13, 2007 on our audits of the financial statements of NovaDel Pharma Inc. as of December 31, 2006, July 31, 2006 and July 31, 2005, and for the five months ended December 31, 2006 and for each of the years in the three-year period ended July 31, 2006, which report is included in this Transition Report on Form 10-K. 

 

|  

 

/s/  J.H. Cohn LLP

 

Roseland, New Jersey

March 21, 2007

 

 

  |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
# Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1387/2014 (repealed)Show full title

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1387/2014 of 14 November 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            (repealed)         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1387/2014                     

# of 14 November 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 (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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-02-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-01-2000
<CASH>                                           4,919
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,935
<ALLOWANCES>                                       932
<INVENTORY>                                      4,977
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                20,595
<PP&E>                                          49,478
<DEPRECIATION>                                  20,813
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 208,410
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           24,381
<BONDS>                                        141,755
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            1,070
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      34,457
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   208,410
<SALES>                                        152,268
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               180,937
<CGS>                                           46,323
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  170,556
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   504
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               457,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              17,880
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (8,003)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       218
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (8,221)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (8,221)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
BITUMINOUS CAS. CO. v. STAFFMARK EAST, L.L.C.

COA06-1189.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed May 15, 2007.

Certification Date June 4, 2007.

Appeal from Franklin (05CVS558).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FREDDIE MANU GEMAN,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 10-72536

Agency No. A088-889-641

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted January 15, 2013** 

Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

Freddie Manu Geman, a native and citizen of Ghana, petitions for review of

the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of

removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have

FILED

JAN 16 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 10-72536

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the

agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility

determinations created by the REAL ID Act, Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034,

1039 (9th Cir. 2010), and we review de novo claims of due process violations, Liu

v. Holder, 640 F.3d 918, 930 (9th Cir. 2011). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination

because Geman’s asylum application and declaration omitted his arrests,

interrogation, and physical abuse, and because his testimony and declaration were

inconsistent regarding which family members were taken into custody. See Kin v.

Holder, 595 F.3d 1050, 1056-58 (9th Cir. 2010) (omission of participation in

political demonstration and inconsistencies regarding circumstances of arrest and

release supported adverse credibility determination). Geman’s explanations do not

compel a contrary conclusion. See id. at 1057. Accordingly, in the absence of

credible testimony, Geman’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See

Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

Because Geman’s CAT claim is based on the same testimony found to be

not credible, and he does not point to any other evidence that shows it is more

likely than not that he will be tortured if returned to Ghana, his CAT claim also

fails. See id. at 1156-57.
3 10-72536

Finally, Geman’s due process claims fail because the proceedings were not

so fundamentally unfair that he was prevented from reasonably presenting his case,

and because he failed to demonstrate prejudice. See Vargas-Hernandez v.

Gonzales, 497 F. 3d 919, 926-27 (9th Cir. 2007) (finding petitioner was given a

full and fair opportunity to present his case); Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th

Cir. 2000) (requiring error and prejudice for a petitioner to prevail on a due process

claim).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
unaudited condensed balance sheets and unaudited condensed statements of
income found on pages 3 and 4 of the Company's Form 10-QSB for the year to
date, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                          43,700
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,456,700
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    111,700
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,742,800
<PP&E>                                         135,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                  12,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              26,127,700
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,397,600
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                         3,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  4,740,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,099,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                26,127,700
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                37,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,157,600
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (2,139,600)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                               1,333,700
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (805,900)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.71)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.27)


</TABLE>
Keith Joseph STOCUM, Jr. and Cynthia Ivey Stocum v. Ward Sayre OAKLEY, Jr., M.D. and Pinehurst Surgical Clinic.

No. 444P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 10, 2008.

Gavin B. Parsons, Gary S. Parsons, Cynthia M. Currin, Raleigh, for Stocums.

Deanna Davis Anderson, Raleigh, for Oakley and Clinic.

Prior report: 185 N.C.App. 56, 648 S.E.2d 227.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 10th day of September 2007 by Plaintiffs 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."