alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2023252EN.01007801.xml

| 17.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/78 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/78

---

Action brought on 31 May 2023 — Vía Atlántica Adegas e Viñedos v EUIPO — Casa Relvas (VIA ATLÁNTICA)

(Case T-301/23)

(2023/C 252/93)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Vía Atlántica Adegas e Viñedos, SL (Chantada, Spain) (represented by: E. Manresa Medina, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Casa Relvas Lda (Redondo, Portugal)

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 word mark VIA ATLÁNTICA — Application for registration No 18 205 496

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 March 2023 in Case R 1419/2022-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and the intervener, if any, to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the intervener, if any, 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.

---
STATE of North Carolina v. Paul Alexander HESTER.

No. 497P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 6, 2008.

Paul A. Hester, Pro Se.

Susan K. Nichols, Special Deputy Attorney General, Edward W. Grannis, Jr., District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 9th day of October 2007 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 6th day of March 2008."
STATE v. Toney CAUDLE.

No. 433P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 19, 2006.

Robert C. Montgomery, Jane Ammons Gilchrist, Assistant Attorney Generals, William Graham, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 21st day of August 2006 by Defendant to Vacate Temporary Stay:

"Motion Dismissed as Moot by order of the Court in conference this the 19th day of December 2006."

Justice TIMMONS-GOODSON recused.
STATE v. Percy Allen WILLIAMS, Jr.

No. 554P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 10, 2008.

Daniel S. Johnson, Special Deputy Attorney General, Peter S. Gilchrist, III, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 13th day of November 2007 by Defendant for "Petition for Discretionary Review":

"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference this the 10th day of April 2008."

HUDSON, J., recused.
EXHIBIT 21



PETER KIEWIT SONS', INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
March 14, 2003


Ben Holt Company
Bibb and Associates, Inc.
Bighorn Walnut, LLC
Construcciones Kiewit, S.A. de C.V.
Construction Kiewit Cie
Constructora Kiewit, C.A.
GBV-Texas, L.P.
GMF 1 L.L.C.
CMF Leasing Co.
GSC Contracting, Inc.
General Construction Company
Gilbert/CBE Indonesia L.L.C.
Gilbert Central Corp.
Gilbert Frontier, Inc.
Gilbert/Healy, L.P.
Gilbert Industrial Corporation
Gilbert Marine L.L.C.
Gilbert Network Services, L.P.
Gilbert Southern Corp.
Gilbert Texas Corp.
Gilbert Texas Construction, L.P.
Gilbert Western Corp.
Global Surety & Insurance Co.
Guernsey Construction Company
Gulf Marine Fabricators, Inc.
KB Leasing Company
KFM Leasing Company
K-G Leasing Company
K-G-W Leasing Company
KP Leasing Company
KT Mining, LP
KiEnergy, Inc.
Kiewit Alabama Mining Company
Kiewit Canada Group A Limited Partnership
Kiewit Canada LLC
Kiewit Construction Company
Kiewit Construction Group Inc.
Kiewit Constructors Inc.
Kiewit Engineering Co.
Kiewit Engineering Canada Co.
Kiewit/Holt Indonesia L.L.C.
Kiewit/Holt-Philippines, L.P.
Kiewit Industrial Co.
Kiewit Industrial Canada Co.
Kiewit International Inc.
Kiewit International Services Inc.
Kiewit Land Holdings, L.L.C.
Kiewit Management Co.
Kiewit Mazon Constructores, S.A. de C.V.
Kiewit Mining Group Inc.
Kiewit Mining Services Inc.
Kiewit Network Services Co.
Kiewit Offshore Services, Ltd.
Kiewit Pacific Co.
Kiewit Venezuela Inc.
Kiewit Western Co.
Lac De Gras Excavation Inc.
MECC Rail Mexicana, S.A. de C.V.
Mass. Electric Construction Co.
Mass. Electric Construction Venezuela, S.A.
Mass. Electric International, Inc.
Mass. Electric Securities Corp., Inc.
Midwest Agencies, Inc.
PT Kiewit International
Peter Kiewit Sons Co.
Peter Kiewit Sons' GP, Inc.
Peter Kiewit Sons', L.P.
Seaworks, Inc.
Servitec de Sonora, S.A. de C.V.
Twin Mountain Construction II Company
V.K. Mason Construction Co.
Walnut Creek Mining Company
2
EXHIBIT 31.2**CERTIFICATION**I, Bradley J. Gregory, Sr., certify that:1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006 ofGeorgia-Carolina Bancshares, Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and we have:a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;b) [paragraph omitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-8238 and 34-47986]c) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;andc) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information; andb) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: March 28, 2007       /s/ Bradley J. Gregory, Sr.         Bradley J. Gregory, Sr.    Senior Vice President and    Chief Financial Officer
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 512 

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to study the feasibility of enlarging 

the Arthur V. Watkins Dam Weber Basin Project, Utah, to provide 

additional water for the Weber Basin Project to fulfill the purposes 

for which that project was authorized. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 7, 2007 

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

to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to study the feasibility of enlarging the Arthur V. Watkins Dam Weber 

Basin Project, Utah, to provide additional water for the 

Weber Basin Project to fulfill the purposes for which 

that project was authorized. 

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 ‘‘Arthur V. Watkins 

5 Dam Enlargement Act of 2007’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

7 Congress finds the following: 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
2 

•S 512 IS

1 (1) Arthur V. Watkins Dam is a feature of the 

2 Weber Basin Project, which was authorized by law 

3 on August 29, 1949. 

4 (2) Increasing the height of Arthur V. Watkins 

5 Dam and construction of pertinent facilities may 

6 provide additional storage capacity for the develop7 ment of additional water supply for the Weber Basin 

8 Project for uses of municipal and industrial water 

9 supply, flood control, fish and wildlife, and recre10 ation. 

11 SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF FEASIBILITY STUDY. 

12 The Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Bu13 reau of Reclamation, is authorized to conduct a feasibility 

14 study on raising the height of Arthur V. Watkins Dam 

15 for the development of additional storage to meet water 

16 supply needs within the Weber Basin Project area and the 

17 Wasatch Front. The feasibility study shall include such 

18 environmental evaluation as required under the National 

19 Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et 

20 seq.) and a cost allocation as required under the Reclama21 tion Project Act of 1939 (43 U.S.C. 485 et seq.). 

Æ 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
Exhibit No. 11. Statement re: Computation of Per Share Earnings for the nine and
                three months ended September 30, 1998 and 1997 (in thousands
                except per share data).


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                  Nine Months           Three Months
                                                     Ended                  Ended
                                                 September 30,          September 30,
                                                ---------------       -----------------
                                                 1998     1997         1998       1997
                                                ------   ------       ------     ------
  <S>                                           <C>      <C>          <C>        <C>



  Net income                                    $  833   $1,357       $  460     $  511
                                                ======   ======       ======     ======


  Basic weighted average shares outstanding      3,682    3,751        3,606      3,754

  Common stock equivalents due to dilutive
    effect of stock options                        163      118          136        139
                                                ------   ------       ------     ------

  Diluted weighted average common
     shares outstanding                          3,845    3,869        3,742      3,893
                                                ======   ======       ======     ======


  Basic earnings per share                      $ 0.23   $ 0.36       $ 0.13     $ 0.14
                                                ======   ======       ======     ======

  Diluted earnings per share                    $ 0.21   $ 0.35       $ 0.12     $ 0.13
                                                ======   ======       ======     ======
</TABLE>



                                       24
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**1092**
**KA 09-02632**

PRESENT: FAHEY, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, SCONIERS, AND WHALEN, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

KENNETH T. HYSON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (TIMOTHY S. DAVIS OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (NANCY GILLIGAN OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Alex R. Renzi, J.), rendered July 8, 2009. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of robbery in the second degree.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of robbery in the second degree (Penal Law § 160.10 [2] [b]). Contrary to defendant’s contention, the record establishes that he knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived the right to appeal ( see generally People v Lopez , 6 NY3d 248, 256), and that valid waiver forecloses any challenge by defendant to the severity of the sentence ( see id. at 255; People v Lococo , 92 NY2d 825, 827; People v Hidalgo , 91 NY2d 733, 737). We reject defendant’s further contention that his right to counsel was violated when County Court denied his request for a new attorney without making an inquiry into his reasons for the request. Defendant’s request for a new attorney was wholly lacking in “specific factual allegations of ‘serious complaints about counsel’ ” ( People v Porto , 16 NY3d 93, 100). We note in any event that, at the next court date following defendant’s request for a new attorney, which was to be a conditional examination of the elderly victim, defendant accepted a plea offer with sentencing consideration that was more favorable than the prior offer. Indeed, based on the court’s statements at sentencing, it appears that the sentence was considerably more favorable than the sentence that the court would have imposed but for the sentencing parameters agreed to as part of the plea.

Entered: November 15, 2013 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
WOODS v. SENTRY INS. A MUT. CO.

No. COA08-49.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed October 7, 2008.

Certification Date October 27, 2008.

Appeal from Wayne (06CVS1800).

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

No. COA07-672.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed April 1, 2008.

Certification Date April 21, 2008.

Appeal from the Pender (05CRS52824).

Cases Reported Without Published Opinion. No error.
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 712/2014Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 712/2014 of 26 June 2014 establishing the standard import values for determining            the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 712/2014                     

# of 26 June 2014

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

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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

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

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

Whereas:

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

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

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

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

# Article 2U.K.

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

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

Done at Brussels, 26 June 2014.

*For the Commission,*                            

*On behalf of the President,*                            

Jerzy Plewa                            

*Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development*                            

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

1

OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.                           

2

OJ L 157, 15.6.2011, p. 1.
# C_2023155EN.01006101.xml

| 2.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/61 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/61

---

Action brought on 20 February 2023 — VP v Parliament

(Case T-83/23)

(2023/C 155/78)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: VP (represented by: M. Brzozowska, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul, on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, Decision No D 314619 of the President of the European Parliament of 16 December 2022 finding that the applicant had engaged in psychological harassment in relation to an accredited parliamentary assistant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, Decision No D 314619 of the President of the European Parliament of 16 December 2022 finding that the applicant had engaged in psychological harassment in relation to an accredited parliamentary assistant;

| — | order the European Parliament to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence and the right to good administration; |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence and the right to good administration;

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 12a(3) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 12a(3) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union;

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment, failure to fulfil the obligation to state reasons, and breach of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment, failure to fulfil the obligation to state reasons, and breach of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials.

---
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , 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.

October 5, 2016

p0928 

# Order

Clerk October 5, 2016

153387

MICHELE PRICE a/k/a MICHELE BURKE,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 153387

COA: 329004

Wayne CC: 15

- 002017

- NH

ELENI CALLIS, D.D.S.,

Defendant

- Appellant,

and

JERRY A. ARONOFF, D.D.S.,

Defendant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 18, 2016

order of the Cour t of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
VI 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 501 

For the relief of Ilko Vasilev Ivanov, Anelia Marinova Peneva, Marina Ilkova 

Ivanova, and Julia Ilkova Ivanova. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 6, 2007 

Mr. KYL introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to 

the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

For the relief of Ilko Vasilev Ivanov, Anelia Marinova 

Peneva, Marina Ilkova Ivanova, and Julia Ilkova Ivanova. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENCE. 

4 In the administration of the Immigration and Nation5 ality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.), Ilko Vasilev Ivanov, 

6 Anelia Marinova Peneva, Marina Ilkova Ivanova, and 

7 Julia Ilkova Ivanova shall be considered to have been law8 fully admitted to the United States for permanent resi9 dence as of the date of the enactment of this Act upon 

10 payment of the required visa fees. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
2 

•S 501 IS

1 SEC. 2. REDUCTION OF NUMBER OF AVAILABLE VISAS. 

2 Upon the granting of permanent residence to Ilko 

3 Vasilev Ivanov, Anelia Marinova Peneva, Marina Ilkova 

4 Ivanova, and Julia Ilkova Ivanova as provided in this Act, 

5 the Secretary of State shall instruct the proper officer to 

6 reduce by 4 during the current or next following fiscal year 

7 the total number of immigrant visas available to natives 

8 of the country of the aliens’ birth under section 202(a)(2) 

9 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 

10 1152(a)(2)). 

Æ 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
MORRIS v. SUPREME COURT.

No. 260P07-3.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 6, 2008.

Robert Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 26th day of November 2007 by Plaintiff for "Notice of Appeal to the Solicitor General of U.S. and U.S. District Court for the middle district of NC and Judicial Standards Commission P.O. Box 1122, Raleigh, NC 27602 for violation of the constitution and failure to docket all the plaintiff record before the courts in this matter and failure for attorneys to response violation by the courts and judges":

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference this the 6th day of March 2008."