alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 730/2014Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 730/2014 of 1 July 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 730/2014                     

# of 1 July 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, 1 July 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.
HENSLEY v. NATIONAL FREIGHT, et al.

No. 536A08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 2, 2009.

Tricia Morvan Derr, Charlotte, for TDY Industries.

Dennis L. Guthrie, John H. Hasty, Justin N. Davis, Charlotte, Gilbert Deitch, Atlanta, GA, for Hensley.

Kevin L. Chignell, Kathryn S. Lehman, Raleigh, for National Freight, et al.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 29th day of December 2008 by Defendant for Extension of Time to File Brief:

"Motion Allowed. Defendant (TDY Industries) shall have up to and including the 12th day of January 2009 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court. By order of the Court in conference this the 2nd day of January 2009."
In the Matter of Appeal of PARKDALE MILLS and Parkdale America from the decisions of the Davidson County Board of Equalization and Review concerning the valuation of certain real property for the tax year 2007.

No. 158P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Aug. 20, 2015.

Charles C. Meeker, Raleigh, Attorney at Law, for Davidson County.

Jamie S. Schwedler, Raleigh, Attorney at Law, for Davidson County.

John A. Cocklereece, Jr., Winston-Salem, Attorney at Law, for Parkdale Mills, et al.

Justin M. Hardy, Attorney at Law, for Parkdale Mills, et al.

D. Anderson Carmen, Attorney at Law.

Charles E. Frye, III, County Attorney, for Davidson County.

*201*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 11th of May 2015 by Respondent (Davidson County) 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 20th of August 2015."
wiei_ex1012.htm



EXHIBIT 10.12







 




  





1











  






 





 




  





2











  






 





 




  





3











  






 





 




  





4











  






 





 


5
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion

should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-40183

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

NICOLAS BUCKETT

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:06-CR-8-2

Before GARZA, CLEMENT, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Nicolas Buckett, proceeding pro se, appeals the 135-month sentence

imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to possess with the

intent to distribute more than 500 grams of methamphetamine, in violation of

21 U.S.C. § 846. He argues, for the first time on appeal, that his sentence is

error because he should have received a safety-valve reduction, pursuant to

U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2. The Government moves for summary affirmance or dismissal,

urging that the appeal is barred by the waiver-of-appeal provision of Buckett’s

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 19, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-40183

2

plea agreement. Alternatively, the Government seeks an extension of time to

file a merits brief.

Our review ofthe record shows that Buckett’s appeal waiver was knowing

and voluntary and that, under the plain language of the plea agreement, the

waiver applies to the circumstances at hand. See United States v. Burns, 433

F.3d 442, 445-46 (5th Cir. 2005); United States v. McKinney, 406 F.3d 744, 746

(5th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, Buckett’s appeal waiver bars review of the issue he

seeks to raise on appeal.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED, the Government’s

motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the Government’s motions

for dismissal or an extension of time are DENIED.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

EVERARDO HERNANDEZ-BELTRAN,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 11-50025

D.C. No. 3:10-cr-01258-IEG-1

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Irma E. Gonzalez, Chief District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted January 10, 2012

Pasadena, California

Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, REINHARDT and W. FLETCHER, Circuit

Judges.

Everardo Hernandez-Beltran entered a conditional plea to one count of

knowingly importing a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and

960, reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment

due to alleged errors in the grand jury instruction. We affirm. 

FILED

JAN 20 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

The district judge did not err in responding “correct” to a prospective grand

juror’s statement that “something must have happened” prior to an individual’s

case being presented before the grand jury. The “correct” confirmed that other

actors were involved in the criminal process, but did not suggest that the grand

jury’s determination should in any way be influenced by those actors’

determinations. See United States v. Caruto, 663 F.3d 394, 401 (9th Cir. 2011). 

We have previously held that the other grand jury instructions that appellant

challenges are not constitutionally defective. See id. at 401-02; United States v.

Cortez-Rivera, 454 F.3d 1038, 1040-41 (9th Cir. 2006); United States v. NavarroVargas, 408 F.3d 1184, 1202-03, 1206-08 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc).

AFFIRMED.
LIPE v. STARR DAVIS COMPANY, INC., et al.

No. 445P14-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Aug. 20, 2015.

M. Duane Jones, Charlotte, for Travelers Casualty & Surety.

Hatcher B. Kincheloe, Charlotte.

*843Michael B. Pross, for Lipe, Shirley, et al.

Cathy A. Williams, for Lipe, Shirley, et al.

Jeri L. Whitfield, for N.C. Chamber and N.C. Association of Defense Attorneys.

Elizabeth Brooks Scherer, for N.C. Chamber and N.C. Association of Defense Attorneys.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 9th of December 2014 by Defendant (Travelers Casualty & Surety) for Temporary Stay:

> "Motion Dissolved by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of August 2015."
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Hum phreys, McCullough and Se nior Judge Bumgardner

PILOT CORPORATION AND PILOT CORPORATION AND PILOT TRAVEL CENTER MEMORANDUM OPINION * v. Record No. 2162-13-4 PER CURIAM MARCH 18, 2014 RENICIA GREGORY

FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION (Heather K. Bardot; Bancroft, McGavin, Horvath & Judkins, P.C., on brief), for appellants. (Brenda C. Moses; The Moses La w Firm, PC, on brief), for appellee.
Pilot Corporation and Pilot Corporation and Pilot Travel Center (“ employer”) appeal a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Comm ission (“the commission”) finding that Renicia Gregory (“claimant”) proved she sustained a compensable injury to her right shoulder and mid-back in an accident on August 30, 2012. 1 Employer also maintains the commission erred in finding claimant proved her disabili ty was related to a compensable injury by accident. We have reviewed the record and the comm ission’s opinion and find that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stat ed by the commission in its final opinion. See Gregory v. Pilot Corp., JCN VA02000012201 (Oct. 10, 2013) . We dispense with oral argument and summarily affirm because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opin ion is not designated for publication.

1 Employer acknowledges it originally appealed the commission’s fi nding that claimant proved she sustained a compensable injury to her lower back as a result of the August 30, 2012 accident, but has now abandoned that argument.UNPUBLISHED- 2 - materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process. See Code § 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27. Affirmed.
In the Matter of D.L.W., D.L.N.W., V.A.W.

No. 252PA15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Nov. 5, 2015.

Richard Croutharmel, Raleigh, for Worth, Dammien Lamar.

Jeffrey William Gillette, for Wade, Marisha Nicole.

Jamie L. Hamlett, for Alamance County DSS.

Derrick J. Hensley, for D.L.W., et al.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Petitioner and GAL on the 21 st of July 2015 for Writ of Supersedeas of the judgment of the Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

> "Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th of November 2015."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 21st of July 2015 by Petitioner and GAL 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:

> "Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th of November 2015."

Therefore the case is docketed as of the date of this order's certification. Briefs of the respective parties shall be submitted to this Court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 15(g)(2).
#### In the Matter of John Pucci, Appellant, v New York State Board of Parole, Respondent.

[801 NYS2d 88]

*1171Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Spargo, J.), entered February 15, 2005 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondent denying his request for parole release.

Petitioner is serving a prison sentence of 25 years to life for his 1979 conviction of murder in the second degree. Petitioner appeared before respondent for the first time in February 2004 and was denied parole release. Following an unsuccessful administrative appeal, petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging that determination. Supreme Court dismissed the petition and this appeal ensued.

Parole determinations are discretionary and not subject to judicial review unless affected by “ ‘irrationality bordering on impropriety’ ” *(Matter of Silmon v Travis,*95 NY2d 470, 476 [2000], quoting *Matter of Russo v New York State Bd. of Parole,*50 NY2d 69, 77 [1980]; *see Matter of Harris v Chair of Div. of Parole,*17 AD3d 822 [2005]). Although the record here demonstrates that respondent placed emphasis on the nature of the instant offense, it also establishes that, prior to denying him parole release, respondent considered the relevant statutory factors, including petitioner’s numerous educational and vocational achievements and his lack of a disciplinary record *(see*Executive Law § 259-i; *Matter of Valderrama v Travis,*19 AD3d 904, 905 [2005]). Respondent is not required to give equal weight to or specifically discuss each factor considered *(see Matter of Salahuddin v Travis,*17 AD3d 760, 760 [2005]; *Matter of Wan Zhang v Travis,*10 AD3d 828, 829 [2004]). Petitioner’s remaining contentions have been reviewed and found to be without merit.

Mercure, J.P., Spain, Carpinello, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
# Honoring the Memory of the Victims of Hurricane Katrina

As a mark of respect for the victims of Hurricane Katrina, I hereby order, by the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America, that the flag of the United States shall be flown at half-staff at the White House and on all public buildings and grounds, at all military posts and naval stations, and on all naval vessels of the Federal Government in the District of Columbia and throughout the United States and its Territories and possessions until sunset, Tuesday, September 20, 2005. I also direct that the flag shall be flown at half-staff for the same period at all United States embassies, legations, consular offices, and other facilities abroad, including all military facilities and naval vessels and stations.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this fourth day of September, in the year of our Lord two thousand five, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirtieth.

[FR Doc. 05-18038

Billing code 3195-01-P
**Exhibit 99.16****CONSENT OF P. MALONEY**     I hereby consent to the use of my name in connection with the following document, which isbeing filed as an exhibit to and incorporated by reference into the registration statement on Form40-F of Goldcorp Inc. (the “Company”) being filed with the United States Securities and ExchangeCommission: 1. The annual information form of the Company dated March 25, 2008, whichincludes reference to my name in connection with information relating to the MarigoldMine, and the properties described therein.Date: March 28, 2008         /s/ Patricia A. Maloney   Name:  Patricia A. Maloney, P. Eng.   Title:  Chief Engineer, Marigold Mine
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Agriculture

###### Forest Service

# AGENCY:

Forest Service, USDA.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

Pursuant to the authorities in the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463) and under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-393), the Boise and Payette National Forests' Southwest Idaho Resource Advisory Committee will conduct a business meeting, which is open to the public.

# DATES:

Wednesday, September 21, 2005, beginning at 11 a.m.

# ADDRESSES:

USDA Forest Service, Payette National Forest, Council Ranger District, 500 East Whitely Avenue, Council, Idaho.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Agenda topics will include review and approval of project proposals, and is an open public forum.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Doug Gochnour, Designated Federal Officer, at 208-392-6681 or e-mail                         *dgochnour@fs.fed.us.*

Dated: September 9, 2005.

Richard A. Smith,

Forest Supervisor, Boise National Forest.

[FR Doc. 05-18318  Filed 9-14-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
STATE v. Bobby E. BOWDEN.

No. 514P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 21, 2008.

Katherine Jane Allen, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Bowden.

Edward W. Grannis, Jr., District Attorney, for State.

Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ___, 668 S.E.2d 107.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 20th day of November 2008 by State of NC for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference this the 21st day of November 2008."
EXHIBIT 23.1Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting FirmWe consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-100176, 333-100177,and 333-123855 of Georgia-Carolina Bancshares, Inc. on Form S-8 of our report dated March 20, 2007,related to the audit of the consolidated financial statements of Georgia-Carolina Bancshares, Inc.as of December 31, 2006 and 2005, and for each of the years in the three year period endingDecember 31, 2006 appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Georgia-Carolina Bancshares,Inc../s/     Cherry, Bekaert & Holland, L.L.P.Augusta, Georgia
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 20 (Tuesday, February 1, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 5268]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-1819]



[[Page 5268]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board


Release of Waybill Data

    The Surface Transportation Board has received a request from The 
Bookings Institution (WB971--1/5/05), for permission to use certain 
data from the Board's Carload Waybill Samples. A copy of this request 
may be obtained from the Office of Economics, Environmental Analysis, 
and Administration.
    The waybill sample contains confidential railroad and shipper data; 
therefore, if any parties object to this request, they should file 
their objections with the Director of the Board's Office of Economics, 
Environmental Analysis, and Administration within 14 calendar days of 
the date of this notice. The rules for release of waybill data are 
codified at 49 CFR 1244.9.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mac Frampton, (202) 565-1541.

Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 05-1819 Filed 1-31-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-01-P
STATE of North Carolina v. Keeandus Rashad BARNES aka Keeblocka El Rashad Ali.

No. 209P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Nov. 5, 2015.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 22nd of June 2015 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 5th of November 2015."
THE STATE OF TEXAS

M A N D A T E

TO THE 175TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF BEXAR COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas on September 9, 2015, the cause upon appeal to

revise or reverse your judgment between

Angel H. Longoria, Appellant(s)

V.

The State of Texas, Appellee(s)

No. 04-15-00262-CR and Tr. Ct. No. 2014CR9330

was determined, and therein our Court of Appeals made its order in these words:

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, these appeals are

DISMISSED.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals for the Fourth

District of Texas, in this behalf and in all things have the order duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

Witness the Hon. Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas,

with the seal of the Court affixed and the City of San Antonio on November 9, 2015.

KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK

Cynthia A. Martinez

Deputy Clerk, Ext. 53853