alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Commission Regulation (EU) No 1256/2014Show full title

Commission Regulation (EU) No 1256/2014 of 21 November 2014 establishing a prohibition of fishing for skates and rays in Union            waters of IIa and IV by vessels flying the flag of The Netherlands         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Regulation (EU) No 1256/2014                     

# of 21 November 2014

# establishing a prohibition of fishing for skates and rays in Union waters of IIa and IV by vessels flying the flag of The                        Netherlands                     

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring                           compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy(1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Council Regulation (EU) No 43/2014(2), lays down quotas for 2014.

(2)According to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation                              by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for                              2014.

(3)It is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

## Article 1U.K.Quota exhaustion

The fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein                     for 2014 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.                  

## Article 2U.K.Prohibitions

Fishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in                     the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited                     to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.                  

## Article 3U.K.Entry into force

This Regulation shall enter into force on the 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, 21 November 2014.

*For the Commission,*                            

*On behalf of the President,*                            

Lowri Evans                            

*Director-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries*                            

## ANNEXU.K.

1

OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.                           

2

Council Regulation (EU) No 43/2014 of 20 January 2014 fixing for 2014 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and                              groups of fish stocks, applicable in Union waters and, to Union vessels, in certain non-Union waters (OJ L 24, 28.1.2014, p. 1).
#### In the Matter of Jahmeiah S.-W. Administration for Children's Services, Respondent; Kera S., Appellant. (Proceed*565ing No. 1.) In the Matter of Naijuwan D. Administration for Children's Services, Respondent; Kera S., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 2.)

[799 NYS2d 902]

In two related neglect proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Richmond County (Porzio, J.), dated October 2, 2003, which, after a post-dispositional hearing, directed that her visitation with her children be supervised.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The mother’s contention that the petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she neglected her children is not properly before this Court, as she did not appeal from the fact-finding or dispositional orders (see CPLR 5515; *Matter of Guzzi v Giacalone,*11 AD3d 464 [2004]).

The mother has not addressed any points on appeal to the only order she has appealed from. Accordingly, we have no occasion to disturb this order, which directed supervised visitation. Prudenti, P.J., Goldstein, Crane and Mastro, JJ., concur.
1

Judge Luttig was a member of the original panel but did not

participate in this decision. The opinion is filed by a quorum of

the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d).

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-1761

ROBERTO PERCY ORE-JIMENEZ,

Petitioner,

versus

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals. (A76-111-412)

Submitted: April 28, 2006 Decided: May 24, 2006

Before LUTTIG,1

 KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ivan Yacub, LAW OFFICE OF IVAN YACUB, Falls Church, Virginia, for

Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Leslie

McKay, Senior Litigation Counsel, Janice K. Redfern, Office of

Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF

JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
- 2 -

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

Ore-Jimenez did not appeal to the Board the immigration

judge’s finding that he was removable as charged by the former

Immigration and Naturalization Service.

3We have jurisdiction to review the questions of law raised in

this appeal. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D); Jean v. Gonzales, 433 F.3d

475, 480 (4th Cir. 2006). 

- 3 -

PER CURIAM:

Roberto Percy Ore-Jimenez, a native and citizen of Peru,

petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals (Board) affirming the immigration judge’s decision to deny

his application for adjustment of status.2

 Ore-Jimenez seeks to

challenge the Board’s ruling3 by relying on the First Circuit’s

decision in Succar v. Ashcroft, 394 F.3d 8 (1st Cir. 2005) (finding

8 C.F.R. § 1245.1(c)(8) (2006), which provides that an arriving

alien who is in removal proceedings is ineligible to apply for

adjustment of status to that of lawful permanent resident alien,

invalid under 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a) (2000)), and other cases

construing § 1245.1(c)(8). However, the decision of the Board in

this case is based on 8 C.F.R. § 1245.2(a)(1) (2006), which applies

when an alien attempts to renew a request for adjustment of status

after a denial by the District Director. 

Under § 1245.2(a)(1), Ore-Jimenez is not eligible to

reapply for adjustment of status because he has had no “earlier

inspection and admission to the United States.” See Jiang v.

Gonzales, 425 F.3d 649, 652-53 (9th Cir. 2005) (holding arriving

alien who has received advance parole is “not eligible to renew his
- 4 -

application for adjustment of status during removal proceedings”

under § 1245.2(a)(1); regulation does not violate 8 U.S.C.

§ 1255(a)).

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
# The Taxi Operators Licensing (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2014 (revoked)

        - Previous
        - Next

N.I.

Statutory Rules of Northern Ireland

# 2014 No. 303

Road Traffic And Vehicles

# The Taxi Operators Licensing (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2014 (revoked)F1

Made

9th December 2014

Coming into operation

29th June 2015

F1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                        

F1Regulations revoked (31.5.2016) by The Taxi Operators Licensing (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2015 (S.R. 2015/395), regs. 1, **3**
Faith JONES, Appellant, v. Thomas DALTON, M.D., Wilmington Anesthesiologists, LLP, and Wilmington Anesthesiologists, PLLC Appellee.

No. 229P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 23, 2008.

Carl W. Thurman, III, Jennifer J. Slusser, for Jones.

Wayne K. Maiorano, Samuel G. Thompson, Raleigh, for Dalton, et al.

This Notice of Disqualification is tendered in the instant case pursuant to Canon 3D of the North Carolina Code of Judicial Conduct.

Matthew G.T. Martin is an associate attorney with Smith, Anderson, Blount, Dorsett, Mitchell & Jernigan, LLP (Smith Anderson), a North Carolina law firm comprised of more than 100 attorneys. He is my brother, related by blood, and thereby within the third degree of relationship. Smith Anderson represents a party in the instant case, but associate attorney Matthew G.T. Martin is not listed as counsel of record.

*721To determine the appropriate course of conduct in cases in which Smith Anderson represents a party before this Court but Matthew G.T. Martin does not appear as counsel of record, I *sua sponte* initiated contact with the Honorable John C. Martin, Chair of the Judicial Standards Commission, and Paul R. Ross, Executive Director of the Judicial Standards Commission. After careful consideration, they have advised that absent a personal appearance by Matthew G.T. Martin, the Code of Judicial Conduct does not require my disqualification from such cases.

Having met the minimal standards required by the Code, I have elected in the interests of justice to issue the following Notice of Disqualification in the instant case. Canon 3D of the Code of Judicial Conduct is entitled "Remittal of Disqualification," and provides, in pertinent part:

Nothing in this Canon shall preclude a judge from disqualifying himself/herself from participating in any proceeding upon the judge's own initiative. Also, a judge potentially disqualified by the terms of Canon 3C may, instead of withdrawing from the proceeding, disclose on the record the basis of the judge's potential disqualification. If, based on such disclosure, the parties and lawyers, on behalf of their clients and independently of the judge's participation, all agree in writing that the judge's basis for potential disqualification is immaterial or insubstantial, the judge is no longer disqualified, and may participate in the proceeding. The agreement, signed by all lawyers, shall be incorporated in the record of the proceeding.

Pursuant to these provisions, and having made the foregoing disclosures, I submit this Notice of Disqualification for inclusion in the record. I will remain disqualified from this proceeding unless I receive notice from the Clerk of Court that a remittal of this disqualification has been executed and filed in conformity with the above provisions of Canon 3D.
`[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 531 Referred in House (RFH)]







110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                 S. 531


_______________________________________________________________________


                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 22, 2008

             Referred to the Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT


 
  To repeal section 10(f) of Public Law 93-531, commonly known as the 
                          ``Bennett Freeze''.

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

SECTION 1. REPEAL OF THE BENNETT FREEZE.

    Section 10(f) of Public Law 93-531 (25 U.S.C. 640d-9(f)) is 
repealed.

            Passed the Senate September 18 (legislative day, September 
      17), 2008.

            Attest:

                                                NANCY ERICKSON,

                                                             Secretary.`
# CE2004078EN.01069601.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/696 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/696

---

(2004/C 78 E/0744)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0118/03

by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 January 2003)

Subject:   Delineation of the European Union's final borders

Subject:

The signature of the Accession Treaty in Athens on 16 April 2003 will definitively open the way for ten new countries to join the European Union on 1 May 2004, once that Treaty has been ratified by the current Member States and by the ten new Member States.

Many analysts believe that we should take the opportunity provided by this enlargement to definitively establish what the final borders of the European Union should be, because the EU cannot go on expanding for ever.

Does the Commission not feel that in order to lay the bases for discussions on this subject it should sponsor an in-depth study by a select group of eminent figures and scholars in this field on where the European Union's borders should end, based on Europe's conception of its own culture and civilisation, which are the unequivocal identifying signs of a common and identical geographical background?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(27 February 2003)

(27 February 2003)

As the Honourable Member is aware, ‘Any European State that respects the principles set out in Article 6(1) of the Treaty on the European Union may apply to become a member of the Union’ in accordance with Article 49 of the Treaty on the European Union. The principles set out in Article 6 of the Treaty are the following: ‘liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law, principles which are common to the Member States.’

After the accession of 10 new members in 2004, the Union has taken the commitment to support Bulgaria and Romania in their efforts to become members in 2007. In March 2002, the Commission plans to propose revised Accession Partnerships for these two countries, as well as for Turkey, ‘a candidate state destined to join the Union on the basis of the same criteria as applied to the other candidate states’ as specified by the Copenhagen European Council in December 2002.

The Copenhagen European Council declared that the Union remains determined to avoid the creation of new dividing lines in Europe and to promote stability and prosperity within and beyond the new borders of the Union.

The European Council reaffirmed the European perspective of the countries of the Western Balkans in the Stabilisation and Association Process as stipulated by the European Council in Feira (19/20 June 2000).

With regard to relations between the enlarged Union and its neighbours, the European Council stated that enlargement will strengthen relations with Russia, and expressed the wish that relations with Ukraine, Moldova, Belarus and the southern Mediterranean countries be enhanced, based on a long-term approach promoting democratic and economic reforms, sustainable developments and trade.

The Commission will soon bring forward proposals to that end.

---
Opinion filed November 16, 2023

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals __________

No. 11-23-00203-CV

__________

IN THE INTEREST OF R.I.C., M.E.C., AND M.A.C., CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 446th District Court

Ector County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. E-19-03-0453-FM

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant, the mother of the children, has filed a pro se notice of appeal from 

an associate judge’s order relating to child support. Following the associate judge’s

order, the father of the children timely filed a request for a de novo hearing in the 

district court. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 201.015 (West Supp. 2023). 

We notified the mother by letter that, if the request for a de novo hearing was 

timely filed, it did not appear that we had jurisdiction in this matter because the order 

from which she attempts to appeal is not a final, appealable order. See id.; In re C.R.-

A.A., No. 04-16-00587-CV, 2016 WL 6238237, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio

Oct. 26, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op.). In the letter, we requested that the parties file a 

response advising if they agree that the request for a hearing was timely filed and 
2

provide this court with the date the hearing is scheduled, and we informed the mother

that this appeal may be dismissed. 

The mother has not responded. The father responded and confirmed that he 

timely filed a request for a de novo hearing before the district court, and that a

hearing is scheduled for November 16, 2023. In his response, the father stated that 

it is “our understanding [that] both parties intended on requesting a de novo hearing 

rather than an appeal to this Court.” The father further informed this court that the 

hearing on November 16 also relates to his request for temporary orders on a petition 

to modify the parent-child relationship. 

When a request for a de novo hearing is timely filed, an associate judge’s order 

or recommendation is not a final, appealable order. See In re C.R.-A.A., 2016 

WL 6238237, at *1; Balachandrachari v. Tang, No. 05-15-00889-CV, 2016 

WL 3971323, at *2 (Tex. App.—Dallas July 22, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op.); see also

In re W.M.C., No. 11-11-00266-CV, 2011 WL 5999374, at *1 (Tex. App.—Eastland 

Dec. 1, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op.) (citing FAM. § 201.015). Unless specifically 

authorized by statute, appeals may be taken only from final judgments. Tex. A & M 

Univ. Sys. v. Koseoglu, 233 S.W.3d 835, 840–41 (Tex. 2007); Lehmann v. Har-Con 

Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). Because the order from which Appellant

now attempts to appeal is not a final, appealable order, we have no jurisdiction to 

consider this appeal and must dismiss it. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a). 

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. 

W. BRUCE WILLIAMS

November 16, 2023 JUSTICE

Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Trotter, J., and Williams, J.
Exhibit 99.1

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 ERP Operating Limited Partnership (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Douglas Crocker II, Chief Executive Officer of the General Partner of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18.U.S.C.
§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

(1)    The
Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; 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/DOUGLAS CROCKER IIDouglas Crocker II
Chief Executive Officer of
Equity Residential, General Partner
November 13, 2002 |  | 
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |  | 

---

QuickLinks
<PAGE>




EXHIBIT 3.2


                            CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
                                     TO THE
                  AMENDED RESTATED CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
                                       OF
                         METROMEDIA FIBER NETWORK, INC.

        (Pursuant to Section 242 of the Delaware General Corporation Law)

The undersigned, Silvia Kessel and Arnold L. Wadler, Executive Vice President
and Secretary, respectively, of Metromedia Fiber Network, Inc., a corporation
organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware (the
"Corporation"), do hereby certify as follows:

1.       The name of the corporation is Metromedia Fiber Network, Inc.

2.       This Certificate of Amendment to the Amended and Restated Certificate
         of Incorporation amends the Amended and Restated Certificate of
         Incorporation of the Corporation to increase the authorized number of
         shares of the Corporation's Common Stock, par value $.01 per share (the
         "Common Stock").

3.       The Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of the
         Corporation is hereby amended by replacing the first sentence of
         Article THIRD, Section 4.1 thereof in its entirety and by substituting
         in its place the following:

                  "The total number of shares of stock which the
                  Corporation shall have the authority to issue is
                  2,946,286,022, consisting of (i) 20,000,000 shares of
                  Preferred Stock, the par value of $0.01 per share (the
                  "Preferred Stock"), (ii) 2,404,031,240 shares of Class
                  A Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share (the "Class
                  A Common Stock), and (iii) 522,254,782 shares of Class
                  B Common Stock, par value of $0.01 per share (the
                  "Class B Common Stock")."

4.       The Board of directors of the Corporation duly adopted resolutions
         pursuant to Section 242 of the Delaware General Corporation Law (the
         "DGCL") proposing that this Certificate of Amendment to the Amended and
         Restated Certificate of Incorporation be approved and declaring the
         adoption of this Amendment to the Amended and Restated Certificate of
         Incorporation to be advisable, and the stockholders of the Corporation
         duly approved this Certificate of Amendment to the Restated Certificate
         of Incorporation in accordance with Sections 211 and 242 of the DGCL.
         Dated and attested to as of May 6, 1999.


                                                  METROMEDIA FIBER NETWORK, INC.


                                                  By:  /s/ Silvia Kessel
                                                       -----------------
                                                       Silvia Kessel
                                                       Executive Vice President

Attest:

/s/ ARNOLD WADLER
-----------------
Arnold L. Wadler
Secretary