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

No. COA08-107.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed October 21, 2008.

Certification Date November 10, 2008.

Appeal from Guilford (05CVD3707).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 109/2014Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 109/2014 of 5 February 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 109/2014                     

# of 5 February 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, 5 February 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.
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 619/2014Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 619/2014 of 10 June 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 619/2014                     

# of 10 June 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, 10 June 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.
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 510 

To specify that the 100 most populous urban areas of the United States, 

as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall be eligible 

for grants under the Urban Area Security Initiative of the Department 

of Homeland Security, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 7, 2007 

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

to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To specify that the 100 most populous urban areas of the 

United States, as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall be eligible for grants under the 

Urban Area Security Initiative of the Department of 

Homeland Security, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Urban Area Security 

5 Initiative Improvement Act of 2007’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS. 

7 In this Act— 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
2 

•S 510 IS

1 (1) the term ‘‘Secretary’’ means the Secretary 

2 of Homeland Security; and 

3 (2) the term ‘‘Urban Area Security Initiative’’ 

4 means the Urban Area Security Initiative grant pro5 gram administered by the Department of Homeland 

6 Security from funds appropriated for discretionary 

7 grants to high-threat, high-density urban areas. 

8 SEC. 3. GRANTS UNDER URBAN AREA SECURITY INITIA9 TIVE. 

10 (a) ELIGIBILITY.— 

11 (1) IN GENERAL.—Each of the 100 most popu12 lous urban areas of the United States shall be eligi13 ble for a grant under the Urban Area Security Ini14 tiative. 

15 (2) DETERMINATION.—For purposes of this 

16 subsection, the Secretary shall determine the urban 

17 areas referred to in paragraph (1) in accordance 

18 with the data collected in the most recent census of 

19 the United States. 

20 (b) SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS.—The Secretary shall 

21 award grants under the Urban Area Security Initiative 

22 after conducting a study of how the variation in the output 

23 of models (numerical or otherwise) used for such awards 

24 can be apportioned, qualitatively or quantitatively, to difVerDate Aug 31 2005 04:15 Feb 09, 2007 Jkt 059200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S510.IS S510

hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
3 

•S 510 IS

1 ferent sources of variation (commonly referred to as sensi2 tivity analysis). 

Æ 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
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.                  

###### Federal Communications Commission

          - 47 CFR Part 73 
          - [DA 05-2340, MB Docket No. 05-185, RM-11236] 

# AGENCY:

Federal Communications Commission. 

# ACTION:

Proposed rule; dismissal. 

# SUMMARY:

                        This document dismisses a pending petition for rulemaking filed by Dr. Sandra L. Woodruff to allot Channel 229C3 at Tenino, Washington for failure to state a continuing interest in the requested allotment. The document therefore terminates the proceeding.                         *See*70 FR 30050, published May 25, 2005.                     

# ADDRESSES:

Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Helen McLean, Media Bureau (202) 418-2738. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    This is a synopsis of the Commission's Report and Order, MB Docket No. 05-185, adopted August 24, 2005, and released August 26, 2005. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center (Room CY-A257), 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC. This document may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractors, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 1-800-378-3160 or                     *http://www.BCPIWEB.com.*

                    This document is not subject to the Congressional Review Act. (The Commission, is, therefore, not required to submit a copy of this Report and Order to GAO, pursuant to the Congressional Review Act,                     *see*5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) since this proposed rule is dismissed, herein.)                 

Federal Communications Commission.

John A. Karousos,

Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau.

[FR Doc. 05-18026 Filed 9-13-05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
HARLEYSVILLE INS. v. BUZZ OFF INSECT.

No. 272A08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 10, 2008.

David L. Brown, John I. Malone, Jr., Greensboro, for Harleysville Mutual Ins. Co.

Mack Sperling, John S. Buford, Greensboro, Cecilia O. Miller, Diana S. Casey, San Diego, CA, for International Garment Tech.

Gary K. Sue, Greensboro, Michael A. Hamilton, for Erie Insurance.

David Neal Allen, Charlotte, for NC Assoc. of Defense Attys.

Joseph W. Eason, Stephen D. Martin, Raleigh, for Property Casualty Insurers.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 10th day of November 2008 by Amicus for extension of time to file Amicus Curiae Brief:

"Motion Allowed. Amicus (NC Association of Defense Attorneys) shall have up to and including the 20th day of November 2008 to file and serve his/her brief with this *900Court. By order of the Court in conference this the 10th day of November 2008."
SNOW v. SNOW.

No. COA08-105.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed November 18, 2008.

Certification Date December 8, 2008.

Appeal from Surry (04CVD1312).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed and remanded. Double costs of this appeal assessed against plaintiff's counsel.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 23.1


                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements: (1)
Form S-8 No. 333-56987 pertaining to the 1997 Long-Term Equity Incentive Plan
and the Employee Stock Purchase Plan, (2) Form S-8 No. 333-42838 pertaining to
the 1997 Long-Term Equity Incentive Plan and (3) Form S-3 No. 333-54192
pertaining to the registration of $150,000,000 of convertible subordinated notes
due 2005 and the registration of 3,781,440 shares of common stock, of Province
Healthcare Company of our report dated February 20, 2001, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements and schedule of Province Healthcare Company
included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2000.


                                    /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Nashville, Tennessee
March 27, 2001
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 953/2014Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 953/2014 of 5 September 2014 establishing the standard import values for determining            the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 953/2014                     

# of 5 September 2014

# establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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

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

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

Whereas:

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

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

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

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

# Article 2U.K.

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

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

Done at Brussels, 5 September 2014.

*For the Commission,*                            

*On behalf of the President,*                            

Jerzy Plewa                            

*Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development*                            

## ANNEXU.K.Standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

1

OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.                           

2

OJ L 157, 15.6.2011, p. 1.
# Council Decision 2013/477/CFSPShow full title

Council Decision 2013/477/CFSP of 27 September 2013 amending Decision 2010/573/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against            the leadership of the Transnistrian region of the Republic of Moldova         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Council Decision 2013/477/CFSP                     

# of 27 September 2013

# amending Decision 2010/573/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the leadership of the Transnistrian region of the                        Republic of Moldova                     

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,

Whereas:

(1)On 27 September 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/573/CFSP(1).

(2)On the basis of a review of Decision 2010/573/CFSP, the restrictive measures against the leadership of the Transnistrian region                              of the Republic of Moldova should be extended until 30 September 2014.

(3)Decision 2010/573/CFSP should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

# Article 1U.K.

Article 4(2) of Decision 2010/573/CFSP is hereby replaced by the following:

‘2.This Decision shall apply until 30 September 2014. It shall be kept under constant review. It may be renewed or amended, as                           appropriate, if the Council deems that its objectives have not been met.’.                  

# Article 2U.K.

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

Done at Brussels, 27 September 2013.

*For the Council*                            

*The President*                            

E. Gustas                            

1

Council Decision 2010/573/CFSP of 27 September 2010 concerning restrictive measures against the leadership of the Transnistrian                              region of the Republic of Moldova (OJ L 253, 28.9.2010, p. 54).
STATE of North Carolina v. Lawrence HANTON.

No. 54P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 26, 2008.

Bruce T. Cunningham, Jr., Southern Pines, for Lawrence Hanton.

Elizabeth Parsons, Assistant Attorney General, Rick Shaffer, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 11th 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 26th day of August 2008."
CRAWFORD v. MINTZ, et al.

No. 47A08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 14, 2008.

Michael J. Tadych, Raleigh, for Crawford.

John M. Kirby, Raleigh, for Mintz, et al.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 9th day of October 2008 by Plaintiffs for Leave to File Reply Brief:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference this the 14th day of October 2008."
ST. JOHN CHRISTIAN HOLINESS CHURCH OF GOD, Christian Holiness Church of God, Inc., Rev. Lenole Brown v. Bishop Charles D. HINES, Sr., Armagene B. Ellis-Smith, Catherine Hairston Hines, and Kathy McLeod.

No. 139P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 26, 2008.

Armagene B. Ellis-Smith, Pro Se.

Charles Hines, Sr., Pro Se.

Calvin Hamrick, for St. John Church, et al.

*648*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by Defendants (Hines & Ellis-Smith) on the 1st day of April 2008 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30 (substantial constitutional question), the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the notice of appeal is

"Dismissed ex mero motu by order of the Court in conference, this the 26th day of August 2008."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 1st day of April 2008 by Defendants (Hines & Ellis-Smith) 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 26th day of August 2008."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 1st day of April 2008 by Defendant in this matter for mandatory review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-30, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Dismissed ex mero motu by order of the Court in conference, this the 26th day of August 2008."
C.A.I. GROUP v. TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL.

No. 493P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 8, 2007.

Seth A. Neyhart, Chapel Hill, for C.A.I. Group, et al.

Ralph D. Karpinos, Town Attorney, Chapel Hill, for Town of Chapel Hill.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 5th day of October 2007 by Plaintiffs for expedited briefing and hearing schedule:

"Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference this the 8th day of November 2007."
STATE v. FRANKLIN.

No. COA08-467.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed February 17, 2009.

Certification Date March 9, 2009.

Appeal from Forsyth (07CRS26644, 07CRS26645).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
# CE2004084EN.01071601.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/716 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/716

---

(2004/C 84 E/0804)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0453/03

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(19 February 2003)

Subject:   Boris Shikhmuradov

Subject:

Is the Commission aware of the case of Boris Shikhmuradov, the Turkmen opposition leader, charged with the attempted assassination of President Nyazov?

Shikhmuradov has been sentenced to life imprisonment by the Halk Maslikhat, Turkmenistan's supreme representative body, and therefore has not received a fair trial through the court process.

Can the Commission bring pressure to bear on the Turkmenistan authorities requesting observation of international standards in allowing the defendant access to a fair trial?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(5 March 2003)

(5 March 2003)

The case of Boris Shikmuradov is well-known to the Commission. The Union has expressed its concerns in demarches on this case as well as on the other human rights cases in Turkmenistan following the assassination attempt against President Niyazov on 25 November 2002.

Mr Shikmuradov was a direct interlocutor with the Commission at the time he was Foreign Minister of his country. His video-taped confession and his trial, organised five days after his arrest, without proper defence and international assistance, is not in line with Turkmenistan commitments in the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). The Commission agrees with the assessment that Mr Shikhmuradov has not received a fair trial. More generally, the Union's concern, expressed in the OSCE Permanent Council, is with the methods used in the investigation and follow-up to the events of 25 November 2002. While conscious of the absence of political dialogue within our Trade and Cooperation Agreement, with Turkmenistan, the Commission will continue to exert pressure on this and other human rights issues through diplomatic channels.

---