alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 882/2014Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 882/2014 of 31 July 2014 entering a name in the register of protected designations            of origin and protected geographical indications (Torrone di Bagnara (PGI))         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 882/2014                     

# of 31 July 2014

# entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Torrone di Bagnara                        (PGI))                     

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, Italy's application to register the name ‘Torrone di Bagnara’                              was published in the *Official Journal of the European Union* (2).

(2)As no statement of objection under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name                              ‘Torrone di Bagnara’ should therefore be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

The name ‘Torrone di Bagnara’ (PGI) is hereby entered in the register.

The name referred to in the first paragraph identifies a product in Class 2.3. Bread, pastry, cakes, confectionery, biscuits                     and other baker's wares in accordance with Annex XI to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014(3).                  

# 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, 31 July 2014.

*For the Commission*                            

*On behalf of the President,*                            

Ferdinando Nelli Feroci                            

*Member of the Commission*                            

1

OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.                           

2

OJ C 89, 28.3.2014, p. 62.                           

3

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 of 13 June 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU)                              No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 179, 19.6.2014, p. 36).
# C_2023155EN.01003402.xml

| 2.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/34

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven kasatsionen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 15 February 2023 — E.N.I., Y.K.I. v HUK-COBURG-Allgemeine Versicherung AG

(Case C-86/23, HUK-COBURG-Allgemeine Versicherung)

(2023/C 155/45)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Varhoven kasatsionen sad

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: E.N.I., Y.K.I.

Respondent: HUK-COBURG-Allgemeine Versicherung AG

Question referred

Must Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II Regulation) be interpreted as meaning that a rule of national law, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for the application of a fundamental principle of the law of the Member State, such as the principle of fairness, in the determination of compensation for non-material damage in cases where the death of a close person has occurred as a result of a tort or delict, may be regarded as an overriding mandatory provision within the meaning of that article?

---

(1)  OJ 2007 L 199, p. 40.

---
EXHIBIT 32.2

Certification Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b)

of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

I, Lauren P. Silvernail, hereby certify pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that the Quarterly Report of ISTA Pharmaceuticals, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2006 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2006 fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of ISTA Pharmaceuticals,
Inc.

|                     |  |  |  |                                                                                                               
|-------------------- |  |  |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                     |  | 
|Date: August 9, 2006 |  |  |  | /s/ Lauren P. Silvernail                                                                                      
|                     |  |  |  | Lauren P. Silvernail Chief Financial Officer, Chief Accounting Officer & Vice President, Corporate Development
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3663 

To require the Federal Communications Commission to provide for a shortterm extension of the analog television broadcasting authority so that 

essential public safety announcements and digital television transition 

information may be provided for a short time during the transition 

to digital television broadcasting. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 1 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 17), 2008 

Mr. ROCKEFELLER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

A BILL 

To require the Federal Communications Commission to provide for a short-term extension of the analog television 

broadcasting authority so that essential public safety announcements and digital television transition information 

may be provided for a short time during the transition 

to digital television broadcasting. 

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 ‘‘Short-term Analog 

5 Flash and Emergency Readiness Act’’. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
2 

•S 3663 IS 

1 SEC. 2. COMMISSION ACTION REQUIRED. 

2 (a) PROGRAM REQUIRED.—Notwithstanding any 

3 other provision of law, the Federal Communications Com4 mission shall, not later than January 15, 2009, develop 

5 and implement a program to encourage and permit, to the 

6 extent technically feasible, the continued broadcasting in 

7 the analog television service of the public safety informa8 tion and digital transition information specified in sub9 section (b) during the 30-day period beginning February 

10 18, 2009, subject to such limitations as the Commission 

11 finds to be consistent with the public interest and the re12 quirements of this Act. 

13 (b) INFORMATION REQUIRED.—The program re14 quired by subsection (a) shall provide for the broadcast 

15 of— 

16 (1) emergency information, including critical 

17 details regarding the emergency, as carried or re18 quired to be carried by full-power stations in the 

19 digital television service; 

20 (2) information, in both English and Spanish, 

21 and accessible to persons with disabilities, con22 cerning— 

23 (A) the digital television transition, includ24 ing the fact that a transition has taken place 

25 and that additional action is required to conVerDate Aug 31 2005 07:47 Oct 02, 2008 Jkt 069200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S3663.IS S3663

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
3 

•S 3663 IS 

1 tinue receiving television service, including 

2 emergency notifications; and 

3 (B) the steps required to enable viewers to 

4 receive such emergency information via the dig5 ital television service and to convert to receiving 

6 digital television service, including a phone 

7 number and Internet address by which help 

8 with such transition may be obtained in both 

9 English and Spanish; and 

10 (3) such other information as the Commission 

11 may find to be consistent with the public interest. 

Æ 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
STATE v. MELVIN.

No. COA07-1284.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed May 20, 2008.

Certification Date June 9, 2008.

Appeal from Sampson (05CRS52198, 05CRS51927).

Cases reported without published opinion. No error.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                         210,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,720,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   607,000
<INVENTORY>                                  2,291,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,591,000
<PP&E>                                       2,452,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,354,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              20,960,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,963,000
<BONDS>                                      6,971,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      2,000
<COMMON>                                       113,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,911,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                25,190,000
<SALES>                                     14,020,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            15,754,000
<CGS>                                       10,048,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               10,048,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             6,841,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             620,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,755,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,757,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.29)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.29)
        

</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

MARIE WASNETSKY, ADMINISTRATOR

OF THE ESTATE OF JOSEPH CHARLES WASNETSKY,

Petitioner

v.

QUINN'S MARKET, QUINN'S MARKET OF ARCHBALD, INC., KRENITSKY'S OF BLAKELY, INC., KRENITSKY'S SUPERMARKET CORPORATION,

WILLIAM KRENITSKY AND JOSEPH QUINN,

Respondents :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 405 MAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 2nd day of January, 2020

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
# C_2023134EN.01002102.xml

| 17.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 134/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 134/21

---

Action brought on 3 March 2023 — Kantstraße Paris Bar v EUIPO — Superstudio21 (Bar Paris)

(Case T-117/23)

(2023/C 134/29)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Kantstraße Paris Bar GmBH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: U. Hildebrandt and A. Wulff, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Superstudio21 GmbH (Cologne, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark Bar Paris — Application for registration No 18 088 718

Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 December 2022 in Case R 299/2022-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
STATE v. Mark Steven PATTON.

No. 578P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 24, 2008.

Kathleen U. Baldwin, Assistant Attorney General, James C. Gaither, Jr., District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 3rd day of December 2007 by Defendant to Proceed as Forma Pauperis:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference this the 24th day of January 2008."
Exhibit








EXHIBIT 10.2
	
					
	
	





Corporate Office
40 Pacifica, Suite 900
Irvine, California  92618
USA










April 15, 2016




Frank D. Martell
40 Pacifica, Suite 900
Irvine, CA 92618


RE:  Amendment to Employment Agreement


Dear Frank:


Following our discussions, this letter (this “Letter”), effective as of April 8, 2016, describes certain changes to the terms and conditions of your employment and, once signed, will serve as an amendment to the Employment Agreement between you and CoreLogic, Inc. (the “Company”), dated August 29, 2011, as amended (the “Employment Agreement”).  Any terms used in this Letter that are not defined herein have the definition ascribed to them in the Employment Agreement.  Note that you are referenced as “the Executive” herein.


This Letter, when fully executed, together with the Employment Agreement, which specifically incorporates the Confidential Information and Inventions Agreement you executed, the Change of Control Agreement you executed, and corporate policies of the Company, along with the Indemnification Agreement you executed, reflects the entire agreement regarding the terms and conditions of your employment.  Unless expressly modified by this Letter, the terms and conditions of the Employment Agreement will remain the same.  To the extent that the terms of this Letter are inconsistent with the terms of your Employment Agreement, this Letter supersedes the terms of your Employment Agreement. 


Section 1.2 of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended and restated in its entirety as follows:


Duties.  Following the appointment by the Company’s Board of Directors, the Executive shall serve as the Chief Operating Officer (“COO”) and shall have such other duties and responsibilities as the Chief Executive Officer of Company (the “CEO”) shall determine from time to time.  The Executive shall be subject to the corporate policies of the Company as they are in effect from time to time throughout the Period of Employment (including, without limitation, the Company’s Code of Conduct, as it may change from time to time).  During the Period of Employment, the Executive shall report solely to the CEO.  





















By executing this Letter, you confirm your decision to accept the amendments to the terms of your Employment Agreement and you agree that your employment will be governed by the Employment Agreement, as amended by this Letter.


I have provided you two originals of this letter.  Please sign both originals, and return one original to me no later than April 22, 2016.  


Very truly yours,


CoreLogic, Inc.


/s/ Anand Nallathambi


Anand K. Nallathambi
President & Chief Executive Officer






Read, understood, consented, and agreed as of this 3rd day of July, 2016:






/s/  Frank D. Martell                        
Frank D. Martell 
















































Page | 2
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-50517

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOSE DE LA CRUZ SAENZ-ARANDA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 4:14-CR-30-1

Before DAVIS, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Jose De La Cruz SaenzAranda raises arguments that are foreclosed by United States v. Teran-Salas, 

767 F.3d 453, 458-62 (5th Cir. 2014), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 1892 (2015). In 

Teran-Salas, we determined that the appellant was not entitled to relief based 

merely on the existence of a theoretical possibility that the defendant could be 

convicted under Texas Health & Safety Code § 481.112(a) for conduct that 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 16, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-50517 Document: 00513080225 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/16/2015
No. 14-50517

2

would not qualify as a federal drug trafficking offense. See Teran-Salas, 767 

F.3d at 458. Saenz-Aranda has not demonstrated “a realistic probability that 

Texas would prosecute under an ‘administering’ theory in a way that does not 

also constitute either ‘dispensing’ or ‘distributing’ under the federal sentencing 

guidelines.” Id. at 461-62. Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary 

affirmance is GRANTED, the alternative motion for an extension of time to file 

a brief is DENIED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 14-50517 Document: 00513080225 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/16/2015
IN RE E.H., JR.

No. COA08-362.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed September 2, 2008.

Certification Date September 22, 2008.

Appeal from Durham (07J39, 07J40, 07J41, 07J42, 07J43).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
STATE v. RODGERS.

No. COA07-1179.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed April 1, 2008.

Certification Date April 21, 2008.

Appeal from the Beaufort (05CRS54903, 06CRS1351).

Cases Reported Without Published Opinion. No error.
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of ERPOperating Limited Partnership (“ERPOP”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the “Report”), I, David J. Neithercut, Chief Executive Officer ofEquity Residential, general partner of ERPOP, certify, pursuant to 18.U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, tothe best of my knowledge:

(1)           TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)           Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of ERPOP.

 
| /s/                     | David J. Neithercut |   |
|-------------------------|---------------------|--------|
| David J. Neithercut     |
| Chief Executive Officer |
| of Equity Residential   |
| May 9, 2007             |

 

----
LUMAMBA v. TECHNOCOM BUSINESS SYSTEMS.

No. COA08-61.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed October 7, 2008.

Certification Date October 27, 2008.

Appeal from NC Industrial Commission (I.C. NO. 434022).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GERALDINE KELLEY DARDEN, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

CHRISTOPHER L. DRISCOLL, as 

executor of the estate of Dr. Scott H. M. 

Driscoll, 

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-15015 

D.C. No. 1:12-cv-01001-EPG 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Erica P. Grosjean, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**

Submitted November 15, 2017***

Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

Geraldine Kelley Darden, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the 

district court’s summary judgment in her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging 

 

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 

U.S.C. § 636(c).

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

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

FILED

NOV 21 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 17-15015 

deliberate indifference to her serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 

28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th 

Cir. 2006). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Darden’s Eighth 

Amendment claim because Darden failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact 

as to whether Dr. Driscoll knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to her serious 

medical needs. See id. (to demonstrate deliberate indifference, the plaintiff must 

show “a purposeful act or failure to respond to a prisoner’s pain or possible 

medical need and . . . harm caused by the indifference”).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in considering the expert 

declarations of two doctors submitted by Dr. Driscoll in support of his motion for 

summary judgment. See Primiano v. Cook, 598 F.3d 558, 563, 566-67 (9th Cir. 

2010) (setting forth standard of review and requirements for admitting expert 

testimony).

Darden’s motions for appointment of an expert witness, to enforce the 

district court’s order for subpoena duces tecum, and to supplement the record on 

appeal (Docket Entry Nos. 9, 14, 32) are denied.

AFFIRMED.
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 435 

To amend title 49, United States Code, to preserve the essential air service 

program. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 30, 2007 

Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself, Ms. SNOWE, Mr. DORGAN, Mr. ENZI, Ms. COLLINS, Mr. HAGEL, Mr. HARKIN, Mr. SCHUMER, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. LEVIN, 

Mr. SPECTER, Mr. NELSON of Nebraska, and Mr. SANDERS) introduced 

the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee 

on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

A BILL 

To amend title 49, United States Code, to preserve the 

essential air service program. 

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 ‘‘Essential Air Service 

5 Preservation Act of 2007’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF EAS LOCAL PARTICIPATION PROGRAM. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 417 of 

8 title 49, United States Code, is amended by striking secVerDate Aug 31 2005 23:03 Jan 31, 2007 Jkt 059200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S435.IS S435

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
2 

•S 435 IS

1 tion 41747, and such title shall be applied as if such sec2 tion 41747 had not been enacted. 

3 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The chapter analysis 

4 at the beginning of such chapter is amended by striking 

5 the item relating to section 41747. 

Æ 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
STATE v. SERVANTES.

No. COA07-1238.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed May 6, 2008.

Certification Date May 27, 2008.

Appeal from Buncombe (04CRS53785, 04CRS53787).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.