alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Charles Freeman, Appellant, v New York State Division of Parole, Respondent.

[800 NYS2d 797]

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Ceresia, Jr., *1175J.), entered March 9, 2005 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of the Board of Parole denying petitioner’s request for parole release.

Petitioner is serving concurrent sentences of 25 years to life for his conviction of, among other things, four counts of murder in the second degree stemming from the execution murder of two people during a warehouse robbery. Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding after the Board of Parole denied his request for parole release. Supreme Court dismissed the petition and this appeal ensued.

We are unpersuaded by petitioner’s contention that he was deprived of due process and a meaningful parole hearing because the Board failed to indicate the areas in which petitioner fell short of qualifying for parole. Initially, as noted by Supreme Court, “Executive Law § 259-i does not create an entitlement to release on parole and therefore does not create interests entitled to due process protection” *(Paunetto v Hammock,*516 F Supp 1367, 1367-1368 [1981]; see *Barna v Travis,*239 F3d 169, 170-171 [2001]; *Matter of Russo v New York State Bd. of Parole,*50 NY2d 69 [1980]). Moreover, the record establishes that in denying petitioner’s request for parole release, the Board considered all relevant statutory factors, including his institutional achievements and programming, lack of disciplinary charges over the past five years and plans upon release *(see*Executive Law § 259-i). Although the Board placed particular emphasis on the heinous nature of the underlying crimes, it was not required to give equal weight to the statutory factors it considered in reaching its discretionary determination *(see Matter of Valderrama v Travis,*19 AD3d 904, 905 [2005]; *Matter of De Jesus v New York State Div. of Parole,*16 AD3d 792 [2005]). Notwithstanding petitioner’s contention to the contrary, there is no requirement that the Board provide petitioner with guidelines to improve his chance of securing parole at his next parole appearance. Petitioner’s remaining contentions, including that the determination was premised on an alleged executive policy, have been reviewed and found to be without merit.

Cardona, P.J., Crew III, Peters, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 204/2014Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 204/2014 of 20 February 2014 entering a name in the register of protected designations            of origin and protected geographical indications [Aceituna de Mallorca/Aceituna Mallorquina/Oliva de Mallorca/Oliva Mallorquina            (PDO)]         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 204/2014                     

# of 20 February 2014

# entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Aceituna de Mallorca/Aceituna                        Mallorquina/Oliva de Mallorca/Oliva Mallorquina (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)Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Spain’s application to register the name ‘Aceituna de Mallorca’/‘Aceituna                              Mallorquina’/‘Oliva de Mallorca’/‘Oliva Mallorquina’ was published in the *Official Journal of the European Union* (2).

(2)As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name                              ‘Aceituna de Mallorca’/‘Aceituna Mallorquina’/‘Oliva de Mallorca’/‘Oliva Mallorquina’ should therefore be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

The name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.

# 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, 20 February 2014.

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

Dacian Cioloș                            

*Member of the Commission*                            

## ANNEXU.K.

Agricultural products intended for human consumption listed in Annex I to the Treaty:

### **Class 1.6.****Fruit, vegetables and cereals, fresh or processed**U.K.

#### SPAINU.K.

Aceituna de Mallorca/Aceituna Mallorquina/Oliva de Mallorca/Oliva Mallorquina (PDO)

1

OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.                           

2

OJ C 276, 25.9.2013, p. 17.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GABRIEL ESQUIVEL BARAJAS and 

ANA AZUCENA TORRES DIAZ, 

Petitioners, 

 v. 

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 15-71603 

Agency Nos. A201-056-062 

A201-056-063 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Argued and Submitted March 13, 2018

San Francisco, California

Before: WATFORD and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges, and FEINERMAN,

**

District Judge.

Gabriel Esquivel Barajas and Ana Azucena Torres Diaz appeal the denial of 

their applications for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b). We 

DISMISS in part and DENY in part the petition for review.

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The Honorable Gary Feinerman, United States District Judge for the 

Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation.

FILED

APR 11 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
 2 

1. Petitioners’ argument that the agency committed legal error by failing to 

consider their lack of criminal history is unpersuasive. To begin, the agency “does 

not have to write an exegesis on every contention,” but rather must show “that it 

consider[ed] the issues raised, and announce its decision in terms sufficient to 

enable a reviewing court to perceive that it has heard and thought and not merely 

reacted.” Lopez v. Ashcroft, 366 F.3d 799, 807 n.6 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Efe v. 

Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 908 (5th Cir. 2002)). That standard was met here. 

To the extent Petitioners challenge the agency’s weighing of the factors, we 

lack jurisdiction to review this argument. See Moran v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 1089, 

1091 (9th Cir. 2005) (“[W]e lack jurisdiction to review discretionary 

determinations of moral character.”), overruled on other grounds by Sanchez v. 

Holder, 560 F.3d 1028 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc); see also 8 U.S.C. § 

1252(a)(2)(B)(i). Because the agency analyzed Petitioners’ moral character under 

the catch-all provision of 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f), this determination was discretionary. 

2. Torres also contends that her due process rights were violated when the 

agency considered the fraudulent tax returns because “the BIA and IJ should have 

considered the degree of fault committed with respect to the tax fraud committed 

by Mrs. Torres and weigh it against the more positive factors of good moral 

character.” “This argument is an abuse of discretion challenge re-characterized as 

an alleged due process violation.” Bazua-Cota v. Gonzales, 466 F.3d 747, 749 (9th 
 3 

Cir. 2006); see id. (“[A]buse of discretion challenges to discretionary decisions, 

even if recast as due process claims, do not constitute colorable constitutional 

claims.”). We therefore lack jurisdiction to review it.

Petition DISMISSED in part and DENIED in part.
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.                  

###### Department of the Interior

###### Bureau of Land Management 

          - [AZ-912-1820-AL-241A] 

# AGENCY:

Bureau of Land Management, Interior. 

# ACTION:

Notice of temporary office closure to the public. 

# SUMMARY:

This notice announces a temporary closure of the Bureau of Land Management Arizona State Office Public Room for October 5-12, 2005. The five-day closure is for the purpose of relocating the land and mineral records, office furniture and electronic equipment to a new location in the Phelps Dodge Tower at 1 North Central Avenue in downtown Phoenix, Arizona. The Public Room will be reopened to the public for regular business hours—9 a.m. to 4 p.m., starting on Thursday, October 13, 2005. The phone number to the Public Room, (602) 417-9200, will remain the same in the new location. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Deborah Stevens, Bureau of Land Management, Arizona State Office, 222 North Central Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2203, (602) 417-9215. 

Joan B. Losacco,

Acting Arizona State Director. 

[FR Doc. 05-18044 Filed 9-12-05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310-32-P
# C_2023338EN.01002901.xml

| 25.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 338/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 338/29

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 24 July 2023 — Zentiva and Zentiva Pharma v Commission

(Case T-278/23 R)

(Interim relief - Medicinal products for human use - Marketing authorisation - Application for interim measures - Application for injunction - Lack of urgency)

(2023/C 338/38)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Zentiva k.s. (Prague, Czech Republic), Zentiva Pharma GmbH (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: K. Roox, T. De Meese and J. Stuyck, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: E. Mathieu, L. Haasbeek and A. Spina, acting as Agents)

Re:

By their application based on Articles 278 and 279 TFEU, the applicants seek, in essence, first, suspension of operation of Commission Implementing Decision C(2023) 3067 final of 2 May 2023 amending Commission Implementing Decision C(2014) 601 final of 30 January 2014 granting marketing authorisation (‘MA’) for the medicinal product for human use Tecfidera — Dimethyl fumarate under Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 laying down Union procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human use and establishing a European Medicines Agency (OJ 2004 L 136, p. 1), as amended, and any subsequent decision or act extending or replacing the contested decision in so far as they concern them, and, second, an injunction requiring the European Commission to refrain from taking any other measures which would amount to a withdrawal of the MAs enjoyed by them or a prohibition on placing generic Dimethyl fumarate products on the market.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | There is no longer any need to rule on the application to intervene submitted by Biogen Netherlands BV or on the application for confidential treatment submitted by Zentiva k.s. and Zentiva Pharma GmbH. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no longer any need to rule on the application to intervene submitted by Biogen Netherlands BV or on the application for confidential treatment submitted by Zentiva k.s. and Zentiva Pharma GmbH.

| 3. | The costs relating to the proceedings for interim relief are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The costs relating to the proceedings for interim relief are reserved.

| 4. | Each party shall bear its own costs relating to the application to intervene submitted by Biogen Netherlands. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Each party shall bear its own costs relating to the application to intervene submitted by Biogen Netherlands.

---
----

(2004/C 78 E/0067)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2031/03

by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 June 2003)

Subject:   Implementation of Community legislation on solid waste and the landfill of waste in Greece

A study carried out by the National Centre for the Environment states that over 90 % of urban waste is disposed of in landfill sites (legal or otherwise), while a mere 8 % is recycled and 1 % composted. However, it is reported that the mechanical waste sorting unit is not only not functioning, it also fails to meet EU specifications and is technologically outdated compared to the optimum available technology.

Given that the Commission has initiated proceedings against Greece for failing to comply with the waste directives — in particular Directive 75/442/EEC (1) on waste — and that all EU Member States are obliged, on the basis of Directive 1999/31/EC (2) on the landfill of waste, to draw up a national strategy and to notify the Commission thereof by 16 July 2003 at the latest and to take specific measures in respect of existing landfill sites, will the Commission say:

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(10 July 2003)

----

(1)OJ L 194, 25.7.1975, p. 39.

(2)OJ L 182, 16.7.1999, p. 1.

(3)OJ L 194, 25.7.1975.

(4)OJ L 78, 26.3.1991.

(5)OJ L 182, 16.7.1999.

----
STATE of North Carolina v. Jason Jeremiah CHAPPELLE.

No. 494P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 11, 2008.

Daniel Pollitt, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Chappelle.

Elizabeth Parsons, Assistant Attorney General, Frank R. Parrish, District Attorney, for State of NC.

Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ___, 667 S.E.2d 327.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by the Defendant on the 6th day of November 2008 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30, and the motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question filed by the State of NC, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the motion to dismiss the appeal is

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 11th day of December 2008."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 6th day of November 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 11th day of December 2008."
STATE v. HARRISON.

No. COA07-756.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed January 15, 2008.

Certification Date February 4, 2008.

Appeal from Forsyth (02CRS50265, 03CRS58786).

Case reported without published opinion. Vacated.
**Exhibit 12**

 

Ratio of Earnings to CombinedFixed Charges and Preference Dividends

 
|                                                                                |   | **(Dollars in thousands)** |   |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|----------------------------|--------|
|                                                                                |   | **2003**                   |   | **2002** |   | **2001** |   |
|                                                                                |   |                       |   |   |   |   |   |
| Interest expense                                                                    |   | $                          | 19,859 |   | $ | 15,823 |   | $ | 13,641 |   |
| Recurring fees related to TOPs program                                              |   | 4,029                      |   | 3,181 |   | 2,491 |   |
| Amortized capitalized costs related to  indebtedness                                |   | 2,081                      |   | 940 |   | 727 |   |
| Preference security dividend requirements  of consolidated subsidiaries             |   | 18,897                     |   | 17,266 |   | 12,578 |   |
|                                                                                |   |                       |   |   |   |   |   |
| Total fixed charges                                                                 |   | $                          | 44,866 |   | $ | 37,210 |   | $ | 29,437 |   |
|                                                                                |   |                       |   |   |   |   |   |
| Net income before allocation to preferred  shareholders of subsidiary               |   | $                          | 73,947 |   | $ | 79,879 |   | $ | 51,563 |   |
| Add:   Total fixed charges                                                     |   | 44,866                     |   | 37,210 |   | 29,437 |   |
| Less:   Preference security dividend requirements of consolidated subsidiaries |   | (18,897                    | )      | (17,266 | ) | (12,578 | ) |
| Earnings                                                                            |   | $                          | 99,916 |   | $ | 99,823 |   | $ | 68,422 |   |
|                                                                                |   |                       |   |   |   |   |   |
| Ratio of Earnings to Combined Fixed Charges  and Preference Dividends               |   | 2:1                        |   | 3:1 |   | 2:1 |   |

 

For the purposes of computingthe ratio of earnings to fixed charges and preference dividends, earnings werecalculated using income before minority interest adding back total fixedcharges less preference security dividend requirements of consolidatedsubsidiaries.  Fixed charges consist ofinterest expense, recurring fees and amortization of capitalized costs relatedto indebtedness and preference security dividend requirements of consolidatedsubsidiaries.  There were no periods inwhich earnings were insufficient to cover combined fixed charges and preferencedividends.

 

----
# Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/2430 (repealed)Show full title

Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/2430 of 21 December 2015 updating the list of persons, groups and entities subject to Articles            2, 3 and 4 of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism, and repealing Decision            (CFSP) 2015/1334 (repealed)         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/2430                     

# of 21 December 2015

# updating the list of persons, groups and entities subject to Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP on the application                        of specific measures to combat terrorism, and repealing Decision (CFSP) 2015/1334 (repealed)                     

F1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                        

Textual Amendments

F1Repealed by Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/1136 of 12 July 2016 updating the list of persons, groups and entities subject to Articles 2,                                 3 and 4 of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism, and repealing Decision                                 (CFSP) 2015/2430.
STATE v. BRANNON.

No. COA08-514.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed November 18, 2008.

Certification Date December 8, 2008.

Appeal from Mecklenburg (07CRS216861, 07CRS216863, 07CRS34027).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
----

(2004/C 33 E/035)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0329/03

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(10 February 2003)

Subject:   Recognition by Unesco of ‘olive and olive oil routes’ as the fourth cultural heritage route

Unesco has already received proposals from many quarters that it should sponsor the ‘olive and olive oil routes’ by officially proclaiming them the fourth world cultural heritage route.

Events along the ‘olive and olive oil routes’ are organised every year by various bodies — such as chambers of trade, local councils and agricultural associations — following an itinerary which starts in Greece, passes along the Turkish coast and through the countries of the Middle East and North Africa and returns via Spain, Portugal, France and Italy to the Peloponnese. Along this route there are cultural activities and demonstrations focused around the theme of olives.

Olives and olive oil are not only prized by Mediterranean peoples for their gastronomic and therapeutic qualities but have also influenced their lives over thousands of years, in terms of their daily routines, customs, beliefs and religion; the olive-branch has prevailed as the global symbol of peace. In view of these facts, is the Commission intending to back the proposal for Unesco recognition of the ‘olive and olive oil routes’ in its meeting next May? If so, how is it intending to do so?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(18 March 2003)

The Commission, while acknowledging the historical, cultural and economic significance of olives and olive oil for Europe, would draw the Honourable Member's attention to the fact that it has no competence to intervene in decisions of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (Unesco).

----
# C_2023304EN.01002501.xml

| 28.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/25

---

Action brought on 5 July 2023 — Väderstad v EUIPO (Position of a combination of presentational features)

(Case T-363/23)

(2023/C 304/30)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Väderstad Holding AB (Väderstad, Sweden) (represented by: A. Rasmussen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union mark representing the position of a combination of presentational features — Application for registration No 18 131 034

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 April 2023 in Case R 61/2021-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | as a subsidiary claim, annul the contested decision in relation to the goods in class 7; |
| --- | --- |

—

as a subsidiary claim, annul the contested decision in relation to the goods in class 7;

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

—

order EUIPO to bear the costs.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article (7)(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article (7)(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Respondent

v. PHILLIP FOXX, Petitioner : : : : : : : : : : : No. 158 WAL 2014 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 5th day of August, 2014, the Petition for Allo wance of Appeal is DENIED
.