alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 780/2014Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 780/2014 of 17 July 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 780/2014                     

# of 17 July 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, 17 July 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.
# C_2023112EN.01004101.xml

| 27.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/41

---

Action brought on 8 February 2023 — TVR Automotive v EUIPO — TVR Italia (TVR)

(Case T-53/23)

(2023/C 112/53)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: TVR Automotive Ltd (Walliswood, United Kingdom) (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl and H. Hartwig, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: TVR Italia Srl (Milano, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark TVR — Application for registration No 12 185 922

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 October 2022 in Case R 1493/2018-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO, and TVR Italia S.R.L., if it should intervene in these proceedings, to bear the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO, and TVR Italia S.R.L., if it should intervene in these proceedings, to bear the costs.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark.

---
# C_2023235EN.01004601.xml

| 3.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 235/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/46

---

Action brought on 23 April 2023 — Fractal Analytics v EUIPO — Fractalia Remote Systems (FRACTALIA Remote Systems)

(Case T-211/23)

(2023/C 235/60)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Fractal Analytics, Inc. (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: J. Güell Serra, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Fractalia Remote Systems, SL (Madrid, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Figurative mark FRACTALIA Remote Systems — EU trade mark No 5 106 406

Proceedings before EUIPO: Invalidity proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 January 2023 in Case R 858/2022-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 27(4) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 read in conjunction with Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Article 19(1) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 27(4) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 read in conjunction with Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Article 19(1) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625;

| — | Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) and Article 10(3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) and Article 10(3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
STATE v. ROBERSON.

No. COA07-1435.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed October 21, 2008.

Certification Date November 10, 2008.

Appeal from Nash (06CRS53390).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
-1- 

### STATE OF MICHIGAN

COURT OF APPEALS

THEATER GROUP 3, LLC, and THEATER GROUP IV, INC.,

Plaintiffs-Appellees, UNPUBLISHED November 13, 2014

v No. 317393 Wayne Circuit Court SECURA INSURANCE COMPANY, LC No. 10-014862-CK

Defendant-Appellant.

Before: F ITZGERALD , P.J., and W ILDER and O WENS , JJ.

W ILDER
, J. ( concurring ).

For the reasons articulated in the lead opinion, I agree that the arbitrator did not exceed her authority and that the trial c ourt did not err when it refused to partially vacate the arbitrator’s opinion and award. I join that as pect of the lead opinion in fu ll. However, for the reasons articulated below, I would not address the quest ion whether the trial court erred in its ruling, before the matter was arbitrated, which denied defendant’s motion for summary disposition.

Following the trial court’s denial of defenda nt’s motion for summary disposition, the trial
court did not sua sponte order that this case would be submitt ed to binding arbitration. Rather, the trial court’s order to binding arbitration was th e result of the parties’ stipulation that the matter should be submitted to binding arbitrati on. As represented at oral argument, this stipulation resulted from the parties’ attempt to avoid the delays in moving the case forward, which were likely to occur due to a change in trial judge. Given th e parties’ stipul ation, the trial court ordered arbitration pursuant to MCL 691.1686( 1), which provides in relevant part that “[a]n agreement contained in a record to submit to arbitration any existing or subsequent controversy arising between the parties to the agreement is valid, enforceable, and irrevocable except on a ground that exists at law or in equity for the revocation of a contract.” (Emphasis added.) MCL 691.1686(1) cannot be waived. MCL 691.1684(2)(a). Thus , a post-arbitration challenge to a previous ruling by the trial cour t is not permitted, because such a ruling renders
the submission to arbitra tion revocable in viola tion of MCL 691.1686(1).

For the above-stated reasons, I would also affirm.

/s/ Kurtis T. Wilder
Exhibit





	
		
	
	 

	 







To:    C. Timothy Trenary
		
	From:
	Laura L. Macias


		
	Re:
	Retention Bonus Letter Agreement


We are pleased to confirm the following retention bonus letter agreement (the “Agreement”) in recognition by the President and CEO and the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors that it is in the best interest of the Company and its stockholders to ensure continuity of leadership following the 2015 executive organization by the Company; and in recognition your past contributions and our commitment to you as an important part of our plan’s for the future.   The specific terms of this Agreement are as follows: 
		
	•
	The Agreement will commence effective March 22, 2016, and will end on March 21, 2018;


		
	•
	The Company will pay you a cash retention bonus in the gross amount of $75,000 provided you remain actively employed and in good standing through the end date of this Agreement;


		
	•
	The retention bonus payment is subject to regular tax withholdings and other authorized deductions;


		
	•
	The retention bonus payment will be made under this Agreement in the first regularly scheduled payroll following the end of the Agreement period;


		
	•
	This retention bonus opportunity does not replace or affect any annual incentive award opportunity or long term incentive award opportunity you may have;


		
	•
	In the event the Company terminates your employment without Cause (as described in your Change in Control Agreement) during the Agreement period, you shall be entitled to receive a pro rata retention bonus payment based on services completed through such termination period;  


		
	•
	In the event you resign or the Company terminates you for Cause (as described in your Change in Control Agreement) during the Agreement period, you shall not be entitled to receive any portion of the retention bonus payment; and


		
	•
	This Agreement does not change the nature of your employment relationship with the Company and does not guarantee your employment for any specified period of time.  


Sincerely,


Laura L. Macias
Chief Human Resources Officer


Please sign and date below to acknowledge your receipt and understanding of this Agreement.




	
		
	C. Timothy Trenary
	Date
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 407 

To amend the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 

to designate a portion of Interstate Route 14 as a high priority corridor, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 26, 2007 

Mrs. HUTCHISON (for herself and Mr. CORNYN) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 

Public Works 

A BILL 

To amend the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency 

Act of 1991 to designate a portion of Interstate Route 

14 as a high priority corridor, 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. DESIGNATION OF HIGH PRIORITY CORRIDOR. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1105(c) of the Intermodal 

5 Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (Public 

6 Law 102–240; 105 Stat. 2032) is amended by adding at 

7 the end the following: 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with BILLS
2 

•S 407 IS

1 ‘‘(46) The Interstate Route 14 corridor from 

2 Wilmington, North Carolina, westward to El Paso, 

3 Texas, as follows: 

4 ‘‘(A) In the State of South Carolina, 

5 through Myrtle Beach and Orangeburg. 

6 ‘‘(B) In the State of Georgia, through Au7 gusta, Warner Robins, and Columbus. 

8 ‘‘(C) In the State of Alabama, through 

9 Tuskegee, Montgomery, and Camden. 

10 ‘‘(D) In the State of Mississippi, through 

11 Waynesboro, Laurel, Brookhaven, and Natchez. 

12 ‘‘(E) In the State of Louisiana, through 

13 Vidalia, Ferriday, Jonesville, Pineville, Alexan14 dria, and Leesville. 

15 ‘‘(F) In the State of Texas, through Jas16 per, Woodville, Corrigan, Lufkin, Trinity, Liv17 ingston, Huntsville, Madisonville, Bryan/College 

18 Station, Cameron, Hearne, Brady, Temple, 

19 Killeen, Lampasas, Menard, Sonora, and El 

20 Paso.’’. 

21 (b) LIMITATION ON USE OF CERTAIN FUNDS.— 

22 Funds allocated under section 1927 of the Safe, Account23 able, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act (Public 

24 Law 109–59; 119 Stat. 1483) to the State of Georgia to 

25 conduct a study for a portion of Interstate Route 14 (inVerDate Aug 31 2005 03:39 Jan 30, 2007 Jkt 059200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S407.IS S407

bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with BILLS
3 

•S 407 IS

1 cluding the corridor designated under paragraph (46)(B) 

2 of section 1105(c) of the Intermodal Surface Transpor3 tation Efficiency Act of 1991 (as amended by subsection 

4 (a))) shall be used only to conduct that study. 

Æ 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3712 Considered and Passed Senate (CPS)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3712

To make a technical correction in the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici 
         Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           November 20, 2008

 Mr. Kennedy (for himself, Mr. Enzi, and Mr. Domenici) introduced the 
following bill; which was read twice, considered, read the third time, 
                               and passed

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To make a technical correction in the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici 
         Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008.

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

SECTION 1. TECHNICAL CORRECTION IN MENTAL HEALTH PARITY EFFECTIVE DATE.

    Section 512(e)(2)(B) of the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental 
Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 (subtitle B of title V 
of division C of Public Law 110-343) is amended by striking ``January 
1, 2009'' and inserting ``January 1, 2010''.
                                 <all>
```
# Commission Regulation (EU) No 9/2014Show full title

Commission Regulation (EU) No 9/2014 of 20 December 2013 establishing a prohibition of fishing for haddock in areas VIIb-k,            VIII, IX and X; EU waters of CECAF 34.1.1 by vessels flying the flag of United Kingdom         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Regulation (EU) No 9/2014                     

# of 20 December 2013

# establishing a prohibition of fishing for haddock in areas VIIb-k, VIII, IX and X; EU waters of CECAF 34.1.1 by vessels flying                        the flag of United Kingdom                     

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 39/2013 of 21 January 2013 fixing for 2013 the fishing opportunities available to EU vessels for                              certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks which are not subject to international negotiations or agreements(2), lays down quotas for 2013.

(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                              2013.

(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 2013 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, 20 December 2013.

*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

OJ L 23, 25.1.2013, p. 1.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-1-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         16,384
<SECURITIES>                                   2,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               59,597
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 65,242
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          357,039
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       87,300
<OTHER-SE>                                     (491,402)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   65,242
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (499,294)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (2,250)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (501,544)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (501,544)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (501,544)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.04)



</TABLE>
IN RE C.Q.

No. COA07-119.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed June 5, 2007.

Certification Date June 25, 2007.

Appeal from Buncombe (05J488).

Cases reported without published opinion. Reversed and remanded.
ex-10.1

 

 Settlement Agreement
 

 This Settlement Agreement (“Agreement”) dated July 25, 2016 is between Bullfrog Gold Corp, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and NPX Metals Inc. (the “Holder”). The Company and the Holder are collectively referred as the Parties.
 

 Whereas, the Company and the Holder executed a Convertible Note (“Note”), Warrant to Purchase (“WPCS”) Common Stock and Securities Purchase Agreement (“SPA”) on April 25, 2014, and
 

 Whereas, the Holder has requested the shares to be issued be preferred shares, rather than common, and
 

 Whereas, the Company and the Holder agree that the total amount due under the note is US $220,000.00 in principal and $58,437.50 in interest, or a total of $278, 437.50,
 

 Now, Therefore, the Holder agrees to accept payment in full and forever settle all debts and obligations of the Note, WPCS and SPA by receiving from the Company 18,562,500 shares of its preferred stock, which each preferred share is exchangeable to one common share. As specified in the SPA, the Holder understands that the shares shall bear a legend or one substantially similar thereto, which Holder has read and understands.
 

 In Witness Whereof, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the date first written above.
 

 COMPANY:
 

 

 

 ______________________
 David Beling
 CEO & President
 

 

 HOLDER
 

 

 /s/ Denis Corin
 Denis Corin
 CEO & President
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Sean G. Felder, Appellant. McRoberts Protective Agency, Inc., Respondent; Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

[800 NYS2d 798]

*1176Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed January 6, 2005, which, inter alia, adhered to its prior decision ruling that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause.

Claimant, a security guard, challenges a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board finding that he voluntarily left his employment without good cause. The record establishes that on June 2, 2004, claimant called the employer’s dispatcher and informed her that he would not be reporting for his scheduled shift that morning or the next day because he was out of town caring for his grandmother, who was ill. Claimant was told that the short notice of his absence violated the employer’s call-in policy and that, upon his return, he would be required to provide some documentation to verify the reason for his absence. Thereafter, claimant failed to report to work or respond to the employer’s phone messages until June 9, 2004, at which time he was informed that he had been terminated.

Inasmuch as claimant failed to contact the employer in a timely manner after his absence or take other reasonable steps to protect his employment, we find that the Board’s decision that claimant abandoned his job is supported by substantial evidence *(see Matter of Rowe [Commissioner of Labor], 4*AD3d 663, 664 [2004]; *Matter of Sgroi [Commissioner of Labor], 4*AD3d 597, 598 [2004]; *Matter of Santiago [Commissioner of Labor],*285 AD2d 780 [2001]).

Crew III, J.P., Peters, Spain, Carpinello and Mugglin, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.