alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1251/2014Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1251/2014 of 21 November 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 1251/2014                     

# of 21 November 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, 21 November 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.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6779
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JEFFREY MAYO, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CR-93-228- L, CA-96-414-L) Submitted: December 19, 1996 Decided: January 3, 1997 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jeffrey Mayo, Appellant Pro Se. Lynne Ann Battaglia, United States Attor ney, Thomas Michael DiBiagio, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104- 132, 110 Stat. 1214. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we denya certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Mayo , Nos. CR-93- 228-L; CA-96-414-L (D. Md. May 3, 1996). We d ispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Howard J. BURRILL, Jr. and Pamela S. Burrill v. James E. LONG, Commissioner of Insurance; The North Carolina Department of Insurance; and The North Carolina Rate Bureau.

No. 438P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 6, 2008.

Allan R. Tarleton, Asheville, for Howard and Pamela Burrill.

Daniel S. Johnson, Special Deputy Attorney General, for Commissioner of Ins., et al.

R. Michael Strickland, Glenn C. Raynor, Raleigh, for Rate Bureau.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the conditional petition filed on the 17th day of September 2007 by Defendant (Rate Bureau) 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 6th day of March 2008."
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

November 29, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

134789 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 134789 

 COA: 276602 

Wayne CC: 02-001616-01

JOHN F. COOPER,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 26, 2007 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). 

p1119 

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. 

November 29, 2007 

 Clerk
# Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 740/2014Show full title

Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 740/2014 of 8 July 2014 implementing Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive            measures in respect of Belarus         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 740/2014                     

# of 8 July 2014

# implementing Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

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

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 of 18 May 2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus(1), and in particular Article 8a(1) and (3) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)On 18 May 2006, the Council adopted Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 which concerns restrictive measures in respect of Belarus.

(2)The Council considers that one person should be added to the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures                              as set out in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 765/2006.

(3)The Council also considers that eight persons should be removed from the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive                              measures as set out in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 765/2006.

(4)Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 is hereby amended in accordance with 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, 8 July 2014.

*For the Council*                            

*The President*                            

P. C. Padoan                            

## ANNEXU.K.

### I.The following persons are deleted from the list set out in part A of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 765/2006:U.K.

### II.The following person is added to the list set out in part A of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 765/2006:U.K.

1

OJ L 134, 20.5.2006, p. 1.
Exhibit 32.2

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 Annual Report of
Active Power, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John K. Penver, Vice President
of Finance, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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

Date: October 27, 2009



|                                                                
|----------------------------------------------------------------
|/S/    JOHN K. PENVER                                           
|John K. Penver                                                  
|Vice President of Finance, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary
# C_2023261EN.01004501.xml

| 24.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/45

---

Action brought on 12 June 2023 — J&B v EUIPO — Ergün (J&B BRO)

(Case T-318/23)

(2023/C 261/61)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: J&B Ltd (Road Town, British Virgin Islands) (represented by: C. Thomas and B. Reiter, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Engin Ergün (Solingen, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark J&B BRO — Application No 18 310 846

Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 April 2023 in Case R 2012/2022-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | dismiss the opposition; |
| --- | --- |

—

dismiss the opposition;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

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.

---
Jerry O. JERNIGAN, George J. Jernigan, Jr., and Learry L. Warren, Plaintiffs v. Laurastine Lee RAYFIELD and husband, James E. Rayfield, Sr., Wilma Lee Albrecht and husband, Robert Lee Albrecht, Loyde Earl Herring, and wife, Sylvia K. Herring, and Loyde Ray Herring, Javier E. Pacheco and wife, Michelle N. Pacheco, American General Finance, Inc., Wade Allen Lewis, Trustee, Cecil Lee Williford, Robert Eugerald Williford, Sue Jernigan Smith, Trustee, Defendants and Loyde Earl Herring and wife, Sylvia K. Herring and Loyde Ray Herring, Third Party Plaintiffs v. Mary Ann Hill, Individually, Hill Realty and Auction Co., Inc., Charles Lee Byrd and wife, Amy P. Byrd, Third Party Defendants and Javier E. Pacheco and wife, Michelle N. Pacheco, Third Party Plaintiffs v. Charles Lee Byrd and wife, Amy P. Byrd, Third Party Defendants.

No. 536P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 3, 2007.

Donald E. Harrop, Jr., Dunn, for Jernigan, et al.

Michael J. Reece, Smithfield, James D. Johnson, for Rayfield, et al.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 9th day of October 2006 by Plaintiffs in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals *771pursuant 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 3rd day of May 2007."
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 174 (Friday, September 9, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53713-53714]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-17843]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration


Withdrawal of Petition for Exemption From the Federal Motor 
Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard; DaimlerChrysler

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice; withdrawal of petition for exemption.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice withdraws the petition by DaimlerChrysler 
Corporation (DaimlerChrysler) for an exemption from the parts marking 
requirements of the vehicle theft prevention standard for the Jeep 
Liberty vehicle line.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Rosalind Proctor, Office of 
International Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Programs, NHTSA, 400 
Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Proctor's phone number 
is (202) 366-0846. Her fax number is (202) 493-2290.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a petition dated March 30, 2005, 
DaimlerChrysler requested an exemption from the parts marking 
requirements of the theft prevention standard (49 CFR part 541) for the 
Jeep Liberty vehicle line, beginning with model year (MY) 2006. The 
petition requested an exemption from the parts marking requirements 
pursuant to 49 CFR part 543, Exemption from Vehicle Theft Prevention 
Standard, based on the installation of an antitheft device as standard 
equipment for the entire vehicle line. On July 12, 2005, the agency 
granted in full the petition of

[[Page 53714]]

DaimlerChrysler for exemption of the Jeep Liberty from the parts 
marking requirements beginning with the 2006 model year. (See 70 FR 
40103). Subsequently, DaimlerChrysler requested the agency to withdraw 
its petition for exemption for the Jeep Liberty vehicle line.
    This notice acknowledges DaimlerChrysler's request for withdrawal 
of its March 30, 2005 petition for exemption. Accordingly, the Jeep 
Liberty vehicle line remains subject to the parts-marking requirements 
of 49 CFR part 541.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 33106; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 
1.50.

    Issued on: September 1, 2005.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 05-17843 Filed 9-8-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 287/2014Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 287/2014 of 20 March 2014 amending Regulation (EC) No 1484/95 as regards representative            prices in the poultrymeat and egg sectors         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 287/2014                     

# of 20 March 2014

# amending Regulation (EC) No 1484/95 as regards representative prices in the poultrymeat and egg sectors

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) and in particular Article 183(b) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Commission Regulation (EC) No 1484/95(2) lays down detailed rules for implementing the system of additional import duties and fixes representative prices in the poultrymeat                              and egg sectors and for egg albumin.

(2)Regular monitoring of the data used to determine representative prices for poultrymeat and egg products and for egg albumin                              shows that the representative import prices for certain products should be amended to take account of variations in price                              according to origin.

(3)Regulation (EC) No 1484/95 should be amended accordingly.

(4)Given the need to ensure that this measure applies as soon as possible after the updated data have been made available, this                              Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1484/95 is replaced by the text set out 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 March 2014.

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

Jerzy Plewa                            

*Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development*                            

## ANNEXU.K.

### “‘ANNEX I

1

OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 671.                           

2

OJ L 145, 29.6.1995, p. 47.
# Council Regulation (EU) No 827/2014Show full title

Council Regulation (EU) No 827/2014 of 23 July 2014 amending Regulation (EC) No 974/98 as regards the introduction of the            euro in Lithuania         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Council Regulation (EU) No 827/2014                     

# of 23 July 2014

# amending Regulation (EC) No 974/98 as regards the introduction of the euro in Lithuania

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 140(3) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,

Having regard to the opinion of the European Central Bank,

Whereas:

(1)Council Regulation (EC) No 974/98(1) provides for the substitution of the euro for the currencies of the Member States which fulfilled the necessary conditions                              for the adoption of the euro at the time when the Community entered the third stage of economic and monetary union.

(2)In accordance with Article 4 of the 2003 Act of Accession, Lithuania is a Member State with a derogation as defined in Article                              139(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (the ‘Treaty’).

(3)Pursuant to Council Decision 2014/509/EU of 23 July 2014 on the adoption by Lithuania of the euro on 1 January 2015(2), Lithuania fulfils the necessary conditions for the adoption of the euro and the derogation in favour of Lithuania is to                              be abrogated with effect from 1 January 2015.

(4)The introduction of the euro in Lithuania requires the extension to Lithuania of the existing provisions on the introduction                              of the euro set out in Regulation (EC) No 974/98.

(5)Lithuania's National Euro Changeover Plan specifies that euro banknotes and coins should become legal tender in Lithuania                              on the day of the introduction of the euro as its currency. Consequently, the euro adoption date and the cash changeover date                              should be 1 January 2015. No ‘phasing-out’ period should apply.

(6)Regulation (EC) No 974/98 should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

The Annex to Regulation (EC) No 974/98 is amended by inserting the following row in the table between the entries for Latvia                     and Luxembourg:                  

# Article 2U.K.

This Regulation shall enter into force on 1 January 2015.

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

Done at Brussels, 23 July 2014.

*For the Council*                            

*The President*                            

S. Gozi                            

1

Council Regulation (EC) No 974/98 of 3 May 1998 on the introduction of the euro (OJ L 139, 11.5.1998, p. 1).                           

2

See page 29 of this Official Journal.
*This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of

law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the

citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under

the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

Filed 4/24/96

TENTH CIRCUIT

LARRY A. BRYAN, 

Petitioner - Appellant, No. 95-3415

v. (D.C. No. 95-CV-3471)

CARLA J. STOVALL, (D. Kan.)

Respondent - Appellant.

 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before PORFILIO, McKAY and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this

appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered

submitted without oral argument.

Petitioner Larry Bryan, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this petition

for habeas corpus relief from his state court conviction while his appeal from that
2

conviction is still pending in state court. Thus, the district court dismissed Mr. Bryan’s

action without prejudice in order to avoid interfering with the state court proceedings. 

The district court then denied Mr. Bryan leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. 

We have reviewed the record and have determined that Mr. Bryan has failed to make an

argument on the law or the facts sufficient to warrant granting him leave to appeal in

forma pauperis. Thus, Mr. Bryan’s motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis is

denied. The appeal is DISMISSED.

DISMISSED. The mandate shall issue forthwith.

Entered for the Court

Monroe G. McKay

Circuit Judge