alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 6/2014Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 6/2014 of 6 January 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 6/2014                     

# of 6 January 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, 6 January 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.
Supertel Hospitality, Inc., and Subsidiaries



Exhibit 32.1

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 of Supertel Hospitality, Inc.,
on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Kelly A.Walters, President and Chief Executive Officer of Supertel Hospitality, Inc.,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Supertel Hospitality, Inc. at the dates and
for the periods indicated.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|            |  |                                      
|----------- |  | -------------------------------------
|May 7, 2009 |  | /s/ Kelly A. Walters                 
|            |  | Kelly A. Walters                     
|            |  | President and Chief Executive Officer

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 of Supertel Hospitality, Inc., on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Donavon A. Heimes, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer, and Secretary of Supertel Hospitality, Inc., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Supertel Hospitality, Inc. at the dates and
for the periods indicated.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|            |  |                                      
|----------- |  | -------------------------------------
|May 7, 2009 |  | /s/ Donavon A. Heimes                
|            |  | Donavon A. Heimes                    
|            |  | Chief Financial Officer and Secretary



37
STATE of North Carolina v. Benjamin Antonio VALDOVINOS.

No. 615PA07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 6, 2008.

J. Darren Byers, Winston-Salem, for Valdovinos.

Ashby T. Ray, Assistant Attorney General, Robert F. Johnson, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by the Defendant on the 27th day of December 2007 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30, and the motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question filed by the State of NC, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the motion to dismiss the appeal is

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 6th day of March 2008."

"The plaintiffs Petition for Discretionary Review is allowed for the limited purpose of remanding this case to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration of its decision in light of *Brendlin v. California,* ___ U.S. ___, 127 S.Ct. 2400, 168 L.Ed.2d 132 (2007). By Order of the Court in Conference, this 6th day of March, 2008."
Exhibit 32.1












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 Annual Report of Intermec, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K
for the period ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Patrick J. Byrne,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.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) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and







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













/s/ Patrick J,
Byrne


Patrick
J. Byrne


Chief
Executive Officer




February
25, 2009
# CE2004070EN.01001901.xml

| 20.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 70/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 70/19

---

(2004/C 70 E/021)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3750/02

by Mario Mauro (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(20 December 2002)

Subject:   Relations between the EU and the Republic of Surinam

Subject:

In May 2000, presidential elections were held in Surinam which radically altered the state of political instability which had characterised the preceding years.

The return of Ronald Venetiaan has prompted fresh action: better control over public expenditure, a reduction in subsidies and an increase in tax revenue. Furthermore, the government has decided to base exchange rates on the market and to cease financing the public deficit by increasing the amount of money in circulation.

Nonetheless, the new government has inherited a country which is on the verge of financial collapse and further reforms are called for if bankruptcy is to be staved off.

Will the Commission say what role it is playing in the democratisation of the country and what strategy it is pursuing in order to foster Surinam's social and economic development?

In particular, does the Commission intend to establish bilateral agreements with Surinam?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(28 February 2003)

(28 February 2003)

The Community contributed EUR 2 million to the electoral process leading to the general elections of May 2000, which were perceived as free and fair. Election observers from Member States participated.

The democratic process, which the country has gone through during the past years, is positively appreciated by the Commission and the international community. Its consolidation is now a priority and this is the subject of a continuous dialogue between Government, civil society and the international community. The Commission plays an active role in co-ordination with the Member States.

During the period 2001-2002, the government improved public finances. Due to global macro-economic setbacks and a 30 % increase in public sector wages in 2002, the situation is now deteriorating. Government has very recently concluded agreements in the mining sector which should help, but the effects can only be expected in the medium term.

With respect to agreements, Surinam has benefited from all the Lomé Conventions and has ratified the Cotonou Agreement. A Country Strategy Paper under the Cotonou Agreement was signed by the Commission and Surinam in July 2002. The Strategy (EUR 19,1 million) is concentrated on transport infrastructure including the improvement of its institutional and legal aspects, actions to create conditions for economic growth. Furthermore, Surinam benefits from the Special Framework of Assistance for Traditional Suppliers of Bananas (EUR 11 million allocated over the past four years) and the preferential treatment on imports of rice into the Union.

---
# C_2023083EN.01002502.xml

| 6.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 83/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 83/25

---

Action brought on 7 November 2022 — SN v Commission

(Case T-689/22)

(2023/C 83/32)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: SN (represented by: L. Levi and P. Baudoux, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the defendant’s decision dated 11 January 2022 insofar as it adds, as restriction that must be observed when the applicant is on leave on personal grounds, the condition of not being involved, participating or advising in proceedings and/or matters carried out by or involving the European Commission and EU Courts and of not entering into any direct or indirect (including written) professional contacts with the relevant services at the Commission in the context of his current work, |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the defendant’s decision dated 11 January 2022 insofar as it adds, as restriction that must be observed when the applicant is on leave on personal grounds, the condition of not being involved, participating or advising in proceedings and/or matters carried out by or involving the European Commission and EU Courts and of not entering into any direct or indirect (including written) professional contacts with the relevant services at the Commission in the context of his current work,

| — | annul the defendant’s decision of 27 July 2022 rejecting the applicant’s complaint, |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the defendant’s decision of 27 July 2022 rejecting the applicant’s complaint,

| — | order the defendant to pay all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the defendant has breached its duty to state reasons. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the defendant has breached its duty to state reasons.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant has infringed Article 40 of the EU Staff Regulations and Commission decision C(2018)4048 of 29 June 2018 on outside activity and assignments and on occupational activities after leaving the Service, as well as the principle of proportionality. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant has infringed Article 40 of the EU Staff Regulations and Commission decision C(2018)4048 of 29 June 2018 on outside activity and assignments and on occupational activities after leaving the Service, as well as the principle of proportionality.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant has infringed the principle of equal treatment. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant has infringed the principle of equal treatment.

---
76 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

Honorable me4 Briman 

criminal DifetriOt Attorney 

Greg8 County 

LoIwV~~W, Texas 

Dear Sir: 

uhether the el 

nates the prop 

ents a sumnary of a 

supervfslon for the 

the question of 

nt of ohanoe domivery mob your 

sac additional raots. 

110~ the teat ooncluor ohanoe predominates 

are oonstrainsd to hold in aovery truly youra 

ATTo~OplqgRdLar~
Vergil SKEEN v. WARREN & SWEAT MANUFACTURING, INC., and Cart Products, Inc.

No. 149P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 26, 2008.

Kenneth R. Raynor, Charlotte, for Warren & Sweat Manufacturing.

Katherine Freeman, Paul I. Klein, Charlotte, for Skeen.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the conditional petition filed on the 18th day of April 2008 by Plaintiff 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:

"Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 26th day of August 2008."
STATE of North Carolina v. Jacob CRAIN.

No. 251P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 26, 2008.

Jacob Grain, Pro Se.

Catherine F. Jordan, Assistant Attorney General, Jerry Wilson, District Attorney, for State of NC.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 3rd day of June 2008 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, 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 26th day of August 2008."
Pam and Dan McDONALD; Alex Porter, Jr., Patricia Ann Hyde; H. Edward Eubanks, Jr.; Richard Thomason; Forrest and Tracy Ballard; Patrick C. Quinn; and Kip And Faith Lyon v. CITY OF CONCORD.

No. 74P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 11, 2008.

Thomas E. Terrell, Jr., Travis W. Martin, Greensboro, for McDonald, et al.

Albert M. Benshoff, City Attorney, Michael B. Brough, Robert E. Hornik, Jr., Chapel Hill, for City of Concord.

*907Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ___, 655 S.E.2d 455.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 19th day of February 2008 by Petitioners 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 11th day of June 2008."
** **

**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

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

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with theQuarterly Report of ERP Operating Limited Partnership (“ERPOP”) on Form 10-Qfor the period ending March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Donna Brandin, ChiefFinancial Officer of Equity Residential, general partner of ERPOP, certify,pursuant to 18.U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

(1)                                  TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities 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/ Donna Brandin       |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
| Donna Brandin           |   |
| Chief Financial Officer |   |
| of Equity Residential   |   |
| May 8, 2006        |   |

 

 

----
STATE of North Carolina v. Andrew Jermaine JORDAN.

No. 581P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 6, 2008.

Charlesena Walker, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Andrew Jermaine Jordan.

Dahr Tanoury, Assistant Attorney General, Frank R. Parrish, District Attorney, for State of NC.

Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ___, 651 S.E.2d 917.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 10th day of December 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."
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 45 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to make a technical correction 

in the definition of outpatient speech-language pathology services. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 4, 2007 

Mr. ENSIGN (for himself and Ms. LANDRIEU) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to make 

a technical correction in the definition of outpatient 

speech-language pathology services. 

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

3 SECTION 1. TECHNICAL CORRECTION IN THE DEFINITION 

4 OF OUTPATIENT SPEECH-LANGUAGE PA5 THOLOGY SERVICES. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1861(ll) of the Social Se7 curity Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(ll)) is amended— 

8 (1) by redesignating paragraphs (2) and (3) as 

9 paragraphs (3) and (4), respectively; and 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with BILLS
2 

•S 45 IS

1 (2) by inserting after paragraph (1) the fol2 lowing new paragraph: 

3 ‘‘(2) The term ‘outpatient speech-language pa4 thology services’ has the meaning given the term 

5 ‘outpatient physical therapy services’ in subsection 

6 (p), except that in applying such subsection— 

7 ‘‘(A) ‘speech-language pathology’ shall be 

8 substituted for ‘physical therapy’ each place it 

9 appears; and 

10 ‘‘(B) ‘speech-language pathologist’ shall be 

11 substituted for ‘physical therapist’ each place it 

12 appears.’’. 

13 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—(1) Section 

14 1861(p) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(p)) 

15 is amended by striking the fourth sentence. 

16 (2) Section 1833(a)(8)(A) of the Social Security Act 

17 (42 U.S.C. 1395l(a)(8)(A)) is amended by striking ‘‘out18 patient physical therapy services (which includes out19 patient speech-language pathology services) and out20 patient occupational therapy services’’ and inserting ‘‘out21 patient physical therapy services, outpatient speech-lan22 guage pathology services, and outpatient occupational 

23 therapy services’’. 

24 (3) Section 1833(a)(8)(B) of the Social Security Act 

25 (42 U.S.C. 1395l(a)(8)(B)) is amended by striking ‘‘outVerDate Aug 31 2005 23:27 Jan 09, 2007 Jkt 059200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S45.IS S45

sroberts on PROD1PC70 with BILLS
3 

•S 45 IS

1 patient physical therapy services (which includes out2 patient speech-language pathology services) and out3 patient occupational therapy services’’ and inserting ‘‘out4 patient physical therapy services, outpatient speech-lan5 guage pathology services, and outpatient occupational 

6 therapy services’’. 

7 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

8 this section shall apply to services provided on or after 

9 the date that is 6 months after the date of enactment of 

10 this Act. 

Æ 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with BILLS
EXHIBIT
32





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350)





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Tegal Corporation, a Delaware
corporation (the “Company“), on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31,
2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report“), I,
Thomas R. Mika, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350),
that to my knowledge:





(1) The
Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





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





/s/ Thomas R. MikaChief
      Executive Officer and PresidentFebruary
      14, 2011





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350)





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Tegal Corporation, a Delaware
corporation (the “Company“), on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31,
2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report“), I,
Christine Hergenrother, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350),
that to my knowledge:





(1) The
Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





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





/s/ Christine HergenrotherChief
      Financial OfficerFebruary
      14, 2011
IN RE M.S.M.

No. COA06-1238.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed March 6, 2007.

Certification March 26, 2007.

Appeal from the Johnston (05J89, 05J97).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.