alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1246/2013Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1246/2013 of 28 November 2013 approving non-minor amendments to the specification            for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Peras de Rincón            de Soto (PDO)]         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1246/2013                     

# of 28 November 2013

# approving non-minor amendments to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin                        and protected geographical indications [Peras de Rincón de Soto (PDO)]                     

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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

Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality                           schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs(1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)By virtue of the first subparagraph of Article 53(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, the Commission has examined Spain’s                              application for the approval of amendments to the specification for the protected designation of origin ‘Peras de Rincón de                              Soto’, registered under Commission Regulation (EC) No 738/2004(2).

(2)Since the amendments in question are not minor within the meaning of Article 53(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, the Commission                              published the amendment application in the *Official Journal of the European Union* (3) as required by Article 50(2)(a) of that Regulation.

(3)As no statement of objection under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the amendments                              should be approved,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

The amendments to the specification published in the *Official Journal of the European Union* regarding the name contained in the Annex to this Regulation are hereby approved.                  

# 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, 28 November 2013.

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

Dacian Cioloș                            

*Member of the Commission*                            

## ANNEXU.K.

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

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

#### SPAINU.K.

Peras de Rincón de Soto (PDO)

1

OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.                           

2

OJ L 116, 22.4.2004, p. 5.                           

3

OJ C 177, 22.6.2013, p. 18.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A18E0025. IN THE INTEREST OF J. W. et al. CHILDREN.

Applicants’Motion for an Extension of Time to File Discretionary Application

is hereby granted. Said application shall be filed on or before January 17, 2018.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

December 15, 2017

12/15/2017
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report ofCrown Pacific Partners, L.P. (the “Partnership”) on Form 10-Q for the periodended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on thedate hereof (the “Report”), I, Steven E. Dietrich, Senior Vice President, ChiefFinancial Officer and Treasurer of the Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

 

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and result of operations of thePartnership.

 

 
| /s/ Steven E. Dietrich                 |   |
|----------------------------------------|--------|
| Steven E. Dietrich                     |
| Senior Vice President,                 |
| Chief Financial Officer  and Treasurer |
| Crown Pacific Partners,  L.P.          |
| August 9, 2004                         |

 

 

This certification is made solely for thepurpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and not for any other purpose.  A signed original of this written statementrequired by Section 906 has been provided to Crown Pacific Partners, L.P. andwill be retained by Crown Pacific Partners, L.P. and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

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


        <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>      5
<LEGEND>       THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION
               EXTRACTED FROM THE SILVER RAMONA MINING COMPANY
               FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER
               31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
               REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
<MULTIPLIER>   1

<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-1-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               62
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       190,798
<OTHER-SE>                                    (78,839)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      438
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (438)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (438)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (438)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.00)



</TABLE>
# C_2023173EN.01002801.xml

| 15.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 173/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 173/28

---

Action brought on 24 March 2023 — European Commission v Republic of Latvia

(Case C-192/23)

(2023/C 173/39)

Language of the case: Latvian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: C. Hermes and I. Naglis, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Latvia

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that the Republic of Latvia has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13(2) and (5) of Regulation (EU) No 1143/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2014 on the prevention and management of the introduction and spread of invasive alien species (1) by failing to establish and implement action plans for all identified priority pathways and to transmit them to the Commission without delay; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the Republic of Latvia has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13(2) and (5) of Regulation (EU) No 1143/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2014 on the prevention and management of the introduction and spread of invasive alien species (1) by failing to establish and implement action plans for all identified priority pathways and to transmit them to the Commission without delay;

| — | order the Republic of Latvia to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Republic of Latvia to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

According to Article 13(2) and (5) of Regulation No 1143/2014, the Republic of Latvia had three years from the adoption of the Union list to establish, implement and transmit to the Commission action plans to address the priority pathways of unintentional introduction and spread of invasive alien species of Union concern identified pursuant to Article 13(1) of Regulation No 1143/2014. The Commission had adopted the Union list referred to in Article 13 of Regulation No 1143/2014 on 13 July 2016 so that the three years deadline expired on 13 July 2019.

The Republic of Latvia has identified at least five priority pathways (horticulture, secondary introduction and aquariums in respect of plants, and secondary introduction and escape from holding facilities in respect of animals) pursuant to Article 13(1) of that regulation.

However, the Republic of Latvia has established and transmitted to the Commission an action plan for only one out of the five identified priority pathways.

---

(1)  OJ 2014 L 317, p. 35.

---
```

                                                                EXHIBIT 14.(A).1

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-139021 and 333-111932) and Form F-3 (No.
333-128847) of our report dated July 13, 2010, with respect to the consolidated
financial statements of Tefron Ltd. included in this Annual Report (Form 20-F/A)
for the year ended December 31, 2009.

/s/ Kost, Forer, Gabbay & KASIERER
----------------------------------
Kost Forer Gabbay & Kasierer
A Member of Ernst & Young Global

Haifa, Israel

April 7, 2011
```
STATE v. MOODY.

No. COA08-134.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed October 21, 2008.

Certification Date November 10, 2008.

Appeal from Mecklenburg (05CRS229134).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

_________________________________ )

BRIDGETTE A. ACKLIN, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 13

- 1 073 (RBW)

)

CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY )

OF AMERICA, )

)

Defendant. )

__________________________________ )

MEMORANDUM

This matter is before the Court on the defendant ’ s motion to dismiss under Rule s 12(b)(1)

and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. By Order of August 30, 2013

, the plaintiff,

proceeding pro se , was advised about responding to the defendant ’ s motion and the

consequence s if s he did not respond by October 4 , 2013 . Specifically, the plaintiff was warned

that h er failure to respond by the deadline might result in summary dismissal of the case on what

would be treated as a conceded motion. The plaintiff has nei ther respond ed to the defendant ’s

motion nor sought additional time to do so. Hence, the Court will grant the defendant ’ s motion

to dismiss as conceded and will dismiss the case. 1

_______s/______________

Reggie B. Walton

DATE: November 1 , 201 3 United States District Judge

1 A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum.
# The Smoke Control Areas (Exempted Fireplaces) (England) (No. 2) Order 2014

        - Previous
        - Next

E+W+S

Statutory Instruments

# 2014 No. 2404

Clean Air, England

# The Smoke Control Areas (Exempted Fireplaces) (England) (No. 2) Order 2014

Made

2nd September 2014

Laid before Parliament

9th September 2014

Coming into force

1st October 2014

The Secretary of State makes the following Order in exercise of the powers conferred by section 21 of the Clean Air Act 1993(1).                        

The Secretary of State is satisfied that the fireplaces exempted by this Order can be used for burning fuel other than authorised                           fuels(2) without producing any smoke or a substantial quantity of smoke.                        

## Citation, application and commencementE+W+S

1.  This Order—                  

(a)may be cited as the Smoke Control Areas (Exempted Fireplaces) (England) (No. 2) Order 2014;                  

(b)applies in England; and                  

(c)comes into force on 1st October 2014.                  

## Fireplaces exempted from the provisions of section 20 of the Clean Air Act 1993E+W+S

2.  The fireplaces listed in the Schedule are exempt from the provisions of section 20 of the Clean Air Act 1993 (prohibition                     on emission of smoke in smoke control area), subject to the conditions listed in the Schedule.                  

## RevocationE+W+S

3.  The Smoke Control Areas (Exempted Fireplaces) (England) Order 2014(3) is revoked.                  

Dan Rogerson

Parliamentary Under Secretary of State

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

2nd September 2014

Article 2

## SCHEDULEE+W+SExempted Fireplaces

## EXPLANATORY NOTE

(This note is not part of the Order)

This Order revokes and replaces with amendments the Smoke Control Areas (Exempted Fireplaces) (England) Order 2014 (S.I. 2014/504).                  

It exempts the classes of fireplaces listed in the Schedule from the provisions of section 20 of the Clean Air Act 1993 (prohibition                     of smoke emissions in smoke control areas), subject to the conditions set out in the Schedule. Additional classes of fireplaces                     have been exempted and minor editorial changes have been made to other entries in the Schedule.                  

An impact assessment has not been produced for this instrument as no impact on the private, voluntary or public sector is                     foreseen.                  

1

1993 c. 11.                           

2

Fuels declared by the Secretary of State to be authorised fuels for the purposes of Part 3 of the Clean Air Act 1993 under                              section 20(6) of that Act are specified in S.I. 2014/2366.                           

3

S.I. 2014/504.
### MEMORANDUM OPINION
N o. 04

- 10

- 00193

- CV Larry C. NAIL , Appellant

v. Rick GODWIN and Eagle’s Nest Christian Fellowship Church, Inc., n/k/a Summit Christian Center, Appellees From the 225th Judicial District Court , Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2008

- CI

- 08066 Honorable Barbara Hanson Nellermoe , Judge Presiding Opinion by: Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice Rebecca S immons , Justice Delivered and Filed: October 20, 2010
AFFIRMED Larry Nail appeals the dismiss al of his lawsuit against Eagle ’s Nest Christian Fellowship Church, Inc., n/k/a Summit Christian Center (“ENCF”) and its senior pastor Rick Godwin. The dismissal order at issue, however, was entered in compliance with this c ourt’s own order in In re Godwin , 293 S.W.3d 742 (Tex. App.

— Sa n Antonio 2009, orig. proceeding ). In that original proceeding, we considered whether the trial court should have refrained from exercising jurisdiction over Nail’s claims because each claim implicated church governance and discipline.04

- 10

- 00193

- CV

- 2

- Id. at 750. Based on our analysis, we conditionally granted ENCF’s p etition for w rit of

m andamus and ordered the trial court to dismiss the underlying lawsuit for lack of jurisdiction based upon the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine. Id. The trial court complied with ou r order.
We now have before us the exact same case on appeal , except with a judgment of dismissal. In two issues, Nail argues our prior decision was wrong and should be overruled. We disagree. Generally, a court of appeals is bound by its initial decis ion if there is a subsequent appeal in the same case. Briscoe v. Goodmark Corp. , 102 S.W. 3 d 714, 716 (Tex

. 2003) (under the law of the case doctrine, a question of law decided by an appellate court governs the case throughout its subsequent stages of liti gation); Hudson v. Wakefield , 711 S.W.2d 628, 630 (Tex. 1986) (“T he doctrine is based on public policy and is aimed at putting an end to litigation.”). Thus, in a subsequent appeal, instructions given to a trial court in the first appeal will ordinarily b e enforced. Wall v. Wall , 143 Tex. 418, 186 S.W.2d 57 , 58 (1945)

. However, a court of appeals may re

- visit its original decision when the appellate court concludes, on the second appeal, that its original decision was “clearly erroneous.” Briscoe , 102 S .W. 3 d at 71 6

- 1 7. We find no such error. Here, the record before the c ourt has not changed. The parties and issues are the same. No new evidence has been developed, no new law has been decided, and Nail asserts no new arguments. C f. i d. at 717 (c ourt h as some discretion to revisit a prior decision if clearly erroneous or based on a n incomplete record); In re Estate of Chavana , 993 S.W.2d 311, 315 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 1999, no pet.) ( dicta in pri or decision reversing and remanding case to trial court without instructions was called into question by intervening and cont rolling higher court decision). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal of Nail’s law suit. Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 177/2014Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 177/2014 of 25 February 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 177/2014                     

# of 25 February 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, 25 February 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.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                 EXHIBIT 10.2.33

            SCHEDULE OF MATERIAL DIFFERENCES AMONG PERCENTAGE LEASES

          The following lists of material differences between the Percentage
Lease filed as Exhibit 10.2 and the Percentage Lease identified by the Exhibit
number below and is being filed pursuant to Instruction 2 to Item 601 of
Regulation S-K.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
 
Exhibit                                                  Annual Base        Percentage Rent
Number          Percentage Lease Description                 Rent               Formula
-------         ----------------------------           ---------------          -------
<S>          <C>                                       <C>               <C>
10.2.33      Lease Agreement dated as of August 7,         $824,900      39% of room revenue
             1997 by and between Sunstone Hotel                          up to $174,596, plus
             Investors, L.P. as lessor and Sunstone                      60% of room revenue
             Hotel Properties, Inc., as lessee, for                      in excess of $174,596
             the Crystal Suites located in Anaheim,                      plus 5% of food and
             California.                                                 beverage revenue, plus
                                                                         100% of sublease and
                                                                         concession revenue and
                                                                         other net revenues.
</TABLE>