alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 584/2014Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 584/2014 of 28 May 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 584/2014                     

# of 28 May 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, 28 May 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.
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 175 (Monday, September 12, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 53802]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-17992]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[FEMA-1595-DR]


Florida; Amendment No. 8 to Notice of a Major Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Emergency Preparedness and 
Response Directorate, Department of Homeland Security.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster for the 
State of Florida (FEMA-1595-DR), dated July 10, 2005, and related 
determinations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 31, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Magda Ruiz, Recovery Division, Federal 
Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2705.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that the incident 
period for this declared disaster is now July 7, 2005, through and 
including July 20, 2005.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) 
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community 
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund Program; 97.032, Crisis 
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services Program; 97.034, 
Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management 
Assistance; 97.048, Individuals and Households Housing; 97.049, 
Individuals and Households Disaster Housing Operations; 97.050, 
Individuals and Households Program--Other Needs; 97.036, Public 
Assistance Grants; 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.)

Michael D. Brown,
Under Secretary, Emergency Preparedness and Response, Department of 
Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 05-17992 Filed 9-9-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-10-P
ANDREWS v. HAYGOOD.

No. 57A07-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 11, 2008.

Pamela S. Duffy, Molly A. Orndorff, Burlington, for Charlie Brown, Trustee.

Timothy P. Lehan, Raleigh, Robert M. Clay, for Haygood, et al.

Brent Stephens, Winston-Salem, for Andrews, et al.

Carlos E. Mahoney, Durham, Burton Craige, Raleigh, for NCATL.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 14th day of August 2008 by Intervenor (NCDHHS) to Strike Reply Brief:

"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference this the 11th day of December 2008."
Exhibit
32





CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





The undersigned hereby certifies,
pursuant to, and as required by, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of
Hauppauge Digital, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June
30, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that information contained in
such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Dated:  August
      14, 2009
                  /s/ Kenneth PlotkinKenneth
      PlotkinChief
      Executive Officer/s/ Gerald TucciaroneGerald
      TucciaroneChief
      Financial Officer, Treasurerand
      Secretary
EXHIBIT 23.2
                                                                   ------------

[GRAPHIC OMITTED -- LOGO]
NETHERLAND, SEWELL & ASSOCIATES, INC.







                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS


We hereby  consent  to the use of and  reference  to our name and to the use of
extracts from our report dated March 24, 2008,  evaluating the proved  reserves
and probable reserves of the major properties of Compton Petroleum Corporation,
as of December 31, 2007, in Compton  Petroleum  Corporation's  Annual Report on
Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2007.


                         NETHERLAND, SEWELL & ASSOCIATES, INC.



                         By:   /s/ C.H. (Scott) Rees III, P.E.
                               -------------------------------------
                               C.H. (Scott) Rees III, P.E.
                               Chairman and Chief Executive Officer


Dallas, Texas
March 28, 2008





Please be advised  that the  digital  document  you are  viewing is provided by
Netherland,  Sewell & Associates  Inc.  (NSAI) as a convenience to our clients.
The digital document is intended to be  substantively  the same as the original
signed  document  maintained  by NSAI.  The digital  document is subject to the
parameters, limitations, and conditions stated in the original document. In the
event  of any  differences  between  the  digital  document  and  the  original
document,  the  original  document  shall  control  and  supersede  the digital
document.
STATE of North Carolina v. Rodney Christopher CRAIG.

No. 46P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 10, 2008.

Katherine Allen, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Craig.

Derrick Mertz, Assistant Attorney General, Peter S. Gilchrist, III, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 1st day of February 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 10th day of April 2008."
# CE2004070EN.01000101.xml

| 20.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 70/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 70/1

---

(2004/C 70 E/001)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2576/02

by Kathleen Van Brempt (PSE) to the Commission

(16 September 2002)

Subject:   Reimbursement for Viagra

Subject:

The sickness insurance scheme under which 45 000 European officials are covered has just decided to reimburse the cost of the impotence pill Viagra on certain conditions. It is the first sickness insurance scheme in Europe to do so. According to the French newspaper ‘Le Monde’, the decision was taken at a time when the scheme, which is two-thirds financed by the EU, is showing a deficit for the first time in its history.

How many European officials are eligible for reimbursement for Viagra?

Why does the Commission consider it necessary to include Viagra in its sickness insurance cover?

If erectile dysfunction is a problem, should the EU not take steps intended to lead to the introduction of reimbursement for Viagra by sickness insurance schemes in all the Member States?

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         6,055,666
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  2,846,932
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (110,000)
<INVENTORY>                                    4,368,965
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               13,746,766
<PP&E>                                         638,614
<DEPRECIATION>                                 307,412
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 14,136,341
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          4,401,374
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       44,858
<OTHER-SE>                                     9,690,109
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   14,136,341
<SALES>                                        17,401,235
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               17,401,235
<CGS>                                          13,192,004
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  3,197,745
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               10,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                1,192,520
<INCOME-TAX>                                   392,815
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            799,705
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   799,705
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0.18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.18
        


</TABLE>
SAFT AMERICA, Inc. v. PLAINVIEW BATTERIES, INC., Energex Batteries, Inc., Bernie R. Erde, and Russell J. Bleeker.

No. 204A08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 26, 2008.

Anthony T. Lathrop, Michael T. Champion, Charlotte, for Saft America.

Lawrence D. McMahon, Jr., Morganton, Cameron Gilbert, for Energex Batteries, et al.

Russell J. Bleeker, Pro Se.

Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ___, 659 S.E.2d 39.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition for discretionary review, filed by Defendants on the 15th day of May 2008 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 and the Appellate Rule 16(b) as to issues in addition to those presented as the basis for the dissenting opinion in the Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the petition for discretionary review as to additional issues is *489Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 26th day of August 2008."

TIMMONS-GOODSON, J., recused.

Accordingly, the new brief of the Defendants shall be filed with this Court not more than 30 days from the date of certification of this order.

Defendants shall forthwith submit an appeal bond to this Court, as provided by Appellate Rule 17(b). The bond may be in cash or by a written undertaking with good and sufficient surety in the sum of $250.00.
<PAGE>7

                                                                  EXHIBIT 11(a)


                              ELECTROSCOPE, INC.


               COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME (LOSS) PER COMMON SHARE

          AND NET INCOME (LOSS) PER COMMON SHARE - ASSUMING DILUTION
                                  (UNAUDITED)

<TABLE>
                                                    For the Three Months Ended
                                                   ----------------------------
                                                   December 31,    December 31,
                                                       1997            1996
                                                   ------------    ------------
<S>                                                <C>             <C>
NET INCOME (LOSS)                                   $ (798,420)     $ (552,532)
                                                    ----------      ----------
                                                    ----------      ----------
SHARES USED IN SHARE COMPUTATION
 Common stock shares outstanding
  (weighted average)                                 5,383,507       5,340,820

 Treasury stock effect of common stock and
  equivalents issued within one year of the
  public offering at prices less than the
  public offering price                                     --              --
                                                    ----------      ----------
   Shares used in computation                        5,383,507       5,340,820
                                                    ----------      ----------
                                                    ----------      ----------

NET INCOME (LOSS) PER COMMON SHARE AND
 NET INCOME (LOSS) PER COMMON SHARE-
 ASSUMING DILUTION                                  $    (0.15)     $    (0.10)
                                                    ----------      ----------
                                                    ----------      ----------
</TABLE>

                                     21
#### In the Matter of Ghislaine Charles, Respondent, v Claude L. Charles, Appellant. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Claude L. Charles, Appellant, v Dario Charles, Respondent. (Proceeding No. 2.)

[799 NYS2d 822]

In related family offense proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, the father, Claude L. Charles, appeals from (1) an order of protection of the Family Court, Nassau County (Eisman, J.), dated November 24, 2003, which, inter alia, directed that he stay away from the mother, Ghislaine Charles, vacate the marital residence, and refrain from communicating with the mother until November 24, 2008 (proceeding No. 1), and (2) an order of the same court also dated November 24, 2003, which, after a hearing, dismissed the petition against his son, Dario Charles (proceeding No. 2).

Ordered that the order of protection in proceeding No. 1 is modified, on the law, by adding thereto a decretal paragraph finding that aggravating circumstances exist including violent and harassing behavior by the father towards the mother which constitute an immediate and ongoing danger to the mother; as so modified, the order of protection is affirmed, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,

Ordered that the order in proceeding No. 2 is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

As the trier of fact, the Family Court’s determination regarding the credibility of witnesses is entitled to great weight *(see Smith v Antonio,*239 AD2d 509 [1997]; *see also De La Cruz v Colon,*16 AD3d 496 [2005]; *Matter of Marino v Marino,*13 AD3d 537, 537-538 [2004]), and its finding that the father’s testimony was incredible is supported by the record. We find no basis to *488disturb the Family Court’s finding that the father failed to establish a prima facie case that the son committed a family offense.

Contrary to the father’s contention, there was sufficient evidence to support the Family Court’s finding of the existence of aggravating circumstances *(see Matter of Flascher v Flascher,*298 AD2d 393 [2002]; Family Ct Act § 827 [a] [vii]). The order of protection is thus modified to include this finding in compliance with Family Court Act § 842 *(see Matter of Flascher v Flascher, supra; Matter of Muller v Muller,*221 AD2d 635 [1995]).

The evidence established that the father engaged in physical violence against the mother. Thus, a directive to the father to vacate the marital residence was reasonably necessary to provide meaningful protection to the mother and to eradicate the root of the family disturbance *(see Merola v Merola,*146 AD2d 611, 611-612 [1989]).

The father’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review. Schmidt, J.P., Santucci, Luciano and Spolzino, JJ., concur.
Stevie JOHNSON, Employee v. CITY OF WINSTON-SALEM, Employer, Self-Insured.

No. 111A08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 12, 2008.

Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, ___ N.C.App. ___, 656 S.E.2d 608 (2008), affirming an opinion and award entered by the North Carolina Industrial Commission on 5 February 2007. Heard in the Supreme Court on 13 October 2008.

*320Roderick T. McIver, Winston-Salem, for plaintiff-appellee.

Wilson & Coffey, LLP, by Kevin B. Cartledge and Lorin J. Lapidus, Winston-Salem, for defendant-appellant.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 23.1
                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of our report on OraLabs
Holding Corp. dated April 9, 2004 in the two Registration Statements on Form S-8
(originally filed in July 1997 and January 2002, respectively) as included in
the OraLabs Holding Corp.'s Form 10-KSB/A for the year ended December 31, 2003,
and to all references to our firm included in such Registration Statements





/s/  Ehrhardt Keefe Steiner & Hottman PC
     -----------------------------------
     Ehrhardt Keefe Steiner & Hottman PC



May 26, 2004
Denver, Colorado
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 530 

To prohibit products that contain dry ultra-filtered milk products, milk protein 

concentrate, or casein from being labeled as domestic natural cheese, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 8, 2007 

Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself and Mr. SCHUMER) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry 

A BILL 

To prohibit products that contain dry ultra-filtered milk 

products, milk protein concentrate, or casein from being 

labeled as domestic natural cheese, 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. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Quality Cheese Act 

5 of 2007’’. 

6 SEC. 2. NATURAL CHEESE STANDARD. 

7 (a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds that— 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

2 

•S 530 IS

1 (1)(A) any change in domestic natural cheese 

2 standards to allow dry ultra-filtered milk products, 

3 milk protein concentrate, or casein to be labeled as 

4 domestic natural cheese would result in increased 

5 costs to the dairy price support program; and 

6 (B) that change would be unfair to taxpayers, 

7 who would be forced to pay more program costs; 

8 (2) any change in domestic natural cheese 

9 standards to allow dry ultra-filtered milk products, 

10 milk protein concentrate, or casein to be labeled as 

11 domestic natural cheese would result in lower reve12 nues for dairy farmers; 

13 (3) any change in domestic natural cheese 

14 standards to allow dry ultra-filtered milk products, 

15 milk protein concentrate, or casein to be labeled as 

16 domestic natural cheese would cause dairy products 

17 containing dry ultra-filtered milk, milk protein con18 centrate, or casein to become vulnerable to contami19 nation and would compromise the sanitation, 

20 hydrosanitary, and phytosanitary standards of the 

21 United States dairy industry; and 

22 (4) changing the labeling standard for domestic 

23 natural cheese would be misleading to the consumer. 

24 (b) PROHIBITION.—Section 401 of the Federal Food, 

25 Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 341) is amended— 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

3 

•S 530 IS

1 (1) by striking ‘‘Whenever’’ and inserting ‘‘(a) 

2 Whenever’’; and 

3 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

4 ‘‘(b) The Commissioner may not use any Federal 

5 funds to amend section 133.3 of title 21, Code of Federal 

6 Regulations (or any corresponding similar regulation or 

7 ruling), to include dry ultra-filtered milk, milk protein con8 centrate, or casein in the definition of the term ‘milk’ or 

9 ‘nonfat milk’, as defined in the standards of identity for 

10 cheese and cheese products published at part 133 of title 

11 21, Code of Federal Regulations (or any corresponding 

12 similar regulation or ruling).’’. 

Æ 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
##### 



EXHIBIT 21
  CNA
    SURETY CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
    As Of December 31, 2006
  IncorporatedCompany

inCNA Surety Corporation


DelawareCNA Surety Capital Trust I


DelawareSUR Insurance Agency, Inc. (f/k/a)
    Troy Fain Insurance, Inc


South DakotaWestern Surety Company


South DakotaSurety Bonding Company of America


South DakotaUniversal Surety of America


Texas     Company

ParentCapsure Holdings Corp. (f/k/a
    Nucorp, Inc.)


CNA Surety CorporationCapsure Financial Group, Inc.


Capsure Holdings Corp.NI Acquisition Corp.


Capsure Financial Group, Inc.SI Acquisition Corp.


Capsure Financial Group, Inc.Surewest Financial Corp.


SI Acquisition Corp.Universal Surety Holding
    Corp.


Western Surety Company