alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Commission Regulation (EU) No 1129/2014Show full title

Commission Regulation (EU) No 1129/2014 of 21 October 2014 establishing a prohibition of fishing for haddock in Union and            international waters of Vb and VIa by vessels flying the flag of Spain         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Regulation (EU) No 1129/2014                     

# of 21 October 2014

# establishing a prohibition of fishing for haddock in Union and international waters of Vb and VIa by vessels flying the flag                        of Spain                     

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 October 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).
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

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 filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the Annual Report of VASCO Data Security International, Inc. (the company) on
Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2009 (the Report), I, Clifford K. Bown, Chief Financial Officer of the company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



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



| | ii. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Clifford K. Bown   
|Clifford K. Bown       
|Chief Financial Officer

March 16, 2010
STATE v. DAVIS.

No. COA08-414.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed December 16, 2008.

Certification Date January 5, 2009.

Appeal from Burke (04CRS 1324).

Case reported without published opinion. No Error.
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 535/2014Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 535/2014 of 20 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 535/2014                     

# of 20 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, 20 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.
IN RE K.M.F.

No. COA08-519.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed October 7, 2008.

Certification Date October 27, 2008.

Appeal from Yadkin (05J67, 05J68).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
MOORE v. NATIONWIDE INSURANCE.

No. 330A08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 29, 2008.

Robert O. Crawford. III, Aaron C. Hemmings, Raleigh, for Moore.

George L. Simpson, III, Raleigh, for Nationwide.

Jerome P. Trehy, Jr., Raleigh, Jesse H. Rigsby, IV, for NCATL.

*722The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 25th day of September 2008 by Amicus for Extension of Time to File Amicus Curiae Brief:

"Motion Allowed. Amicus (Asso. of Defense Attorneys) shall have up to and including the 20th day of October, 2008 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court. By order of the Court in conference this the 29th day of September 2008."
STATE of North Carolina v. Kevin MITCHELL.

No. 200P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 17, 2015.

Kevin Mitchell, for Mitchell, Kevin.

Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of N.C.

N. Lauren Freeman, Jr., District Attorney, for State of N.C.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 15th of June 2015 in this matter for a writ of mandamus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Wake County:

> "Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 17th of June 2015."
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 18

- 00329

- CR

I VAN H OLBERT

, Appellant

V

.

T HE S TATE OF T EXAS §

§

§

§

§ On Appeal from the 431st District Court

of Denton County (F17

- 12 72

- 431)

August 28, 2019

Opinion by Justice Kerr

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial

court is affirm e d.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By _ /s/ Elizabeth Kerr

__________________ Justice Elizabeth Kerr
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

#### **CERTIFICATIONSOF PERIODIC REPORT**

#### ** **

I, John R. Serino,President and Chief Executive Officer of Encision Inc. (the “Company”),certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to the best of my knowledge:

 

•                  the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSBof the Company for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2005 (the “Report”)fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

 

•                  the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

 
| Dated: | February 13, 2006       |
|--------|------------------------------|
|   |
|   | /s/ John R.  Serino          |   |
|   |                         |
|   | John R. Serino               |
|   | Principal  Executive Officer |
|        |                              |  |  |

 

 

I, Marcia McHaffie,Controller and Principal Accounting Officer of Encision Inc. (the “Company”),certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to the best of my knowledge:

 

•                  the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSBof the Company for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2005 (the “Report”)fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

 

•                  the information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.

 
| Dated: | February 13, 2006                                                    |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |
|   | /s/ Marcia  McHaffie                                                      |   |
|   |                                                                      |
|   | Marcia McHaffie                                                           |
|   | Controller,  Principal Accounting Officer and Principal Financial Officer |
|        |                                                                           |  |  |

 

----
*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.

-1-

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 3, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 02-11286

Summary Calendar

AVALON RESIDENTIAL CARE HOMES, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

GE FINANCIAL ASSURANCE CO.,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division

(3:02-CV-631-L)

Before JONES, STEWART, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Avalon Residential Care Homes appeals from the district

court’s order granting defendant GE Financial Assurance Company’s

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for

failure to state a claim. We review the district court’s order de
-2-

novo. S. Christian Leadership Conference v. Supreme Ct. of La.,

252 F.3d 781, 786 (5th Cir. 2001).

Avalon argues that GE violated the Fair Housing Act (FHA), 42

U.S.C. § 3604(f), by denying Mildred Tanco’s claim under a longterm nursing home care indemnity policy for care at an Avalon

facility. Avalon does not dispute that its facility is not covered

under the policy; rather, it argues that GE was obligated by the

FHA to modify its policy to allow coverage of the Avalon home.

The relevant portion of 42 U.S.C. § 3604 states:

As made applicable by section 803 of this title and

except as exempted by sections 803(b) and 807 of this

title, it shall be unlawful:

. . .

(f)(1) to discriminate in the sale or rental, or to

otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any

buyer or renter because of a handicap of - (A) that buyer

or renter . . .

(f)(3) For purposes of this subsection, discrimination

includes - . . .

(B) a refusal to make reasonable accommodations in

rules, policies, practices, or services, when such

accommodations may be necessary to afford such a

person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a

dwelling;. . .

(emphasis added). By its terms the FHA prohibits discrimination in

housing “because of a handicap.” Avalon makes no allegation of any

such discrimination, however, because it does not plead any facts

suggesting that the policy denied housing to Tanco because of her

disability. The policy in question covers (and excludes) certain

facilities in a disabled-neutral manner, and the FHA does not

require GE to modify the content of its policy to give the disabled
-3-

a choice of homes not offered all policyholders. Cf. McNeil v.

Time Insurance Co., 205 F.3d 179, 186-87 (5th Cir. 2000)

(requirement of “full and equal enjoyment of goods and services” in

Title III of the ADA simply requires businesses to offer the

disabled access to the same products offered others).

Because Avalon makes no viable claim under the FHA, the

district court’s order dismissing this case is AFFIRMED.
----

(2004/C 33 E/142)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1611/03

by Jean-Louis Bernié (EDD) to the Commission

(7 May 2003)

Subject:   Marketing of cereals

Apart from in France, the marketing of cereals in the European Union is not regulated; farmers can sell their produce freely and can ensure that it is perfectly traceable, in contrast to the produce of giant silos.

In France, the marketing function is a monopoly held by the storage agencies licensed by the National Cereals Trades Board (ONIC), and it is compulsory for all cereal trade to be channelled through them. The approved collectors deduct the parafiscal charges which are needed, amongst other things, for the operation of ONIC, which gives them financial support.

This situation means that producers and users of French cereals are penalised both financially and in respect of their ability to trade freely. For example, a French cereals producer is not allowed to sell his produce directly to a breeder.

The rules imposed by ONIC therefore appear to constitute a barrier to Community trade and freedom of trade.

What does the Commission think of this typically French situation?

Does it have any suggestions for resolving it?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(25 July 2003)

The Commission's information is that the system of approved collectors as introduced by Order No 67-812 of 22 September 1967 to replace the storage agency system in order to enable France to comply with her obligations under the common organisation of the cereals market following entry into force of Regulation No 120/67/EEC (1) sets non-discriminatory terms of access to the activity of collector aimed at the general interest and does not interfere with the purposes of the common organisation of cereal markets.

The system is designed both to protect the weaker of the contracting parties, i.e. the grower, by guaranteeing immediate payment for the cereals and correctness of transactions and to ensure that cereal quality is preserved during the subsequent marketing stages. It also affords reliable statistical monitoring of the cereals market and is a means of securing payment of the parafiscal charges owed by growers. Lastly, in retaining the grower's freedom to choose the buyer, given that the approved collectors are in competition, and in retaining freedom of prices, which remain dependent on supply and demand, the system remains without influence on price formation and affects neither intra-Community trade nor the free provision of services by users established in other Member States.

The parafiscal charges levied to finance action in the cereals sector (FASC) are not imposed on imports from other Member States or non-Union countries and do not compromise the policy on cereal growers' incomes implemented through the common market organisation. In their present form they were approved by the Commission on 19 October 2000 as an aid system compatible with the common market (State Aids/France No 514/2000).

----

(1)  Regulation No 120/67/EEC of 13 June 1967 on the common organisation of the market in cereals, OJ 117, 19.6.1967.

----
# C_2023179EN.01005501.xml

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/55

---

Action brought on 6 February 2023 — FFPE Council section v Council

(Case T-44/23)

(2023/C 179/80)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Civil Service Federation Council section (FFPE Council section) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: A. Champetier and S. Rodrigues, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare this action admissible and well founded; and consequently, |
| --- | --- |

—

declare this action admissible and well founded; and consequently,

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order the defendant to pay token damages of EUR 1 for the non-material damage allegedly suffered, and |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay token damages of EUR 1 for the non-material damage allegedly suffered, and

| — | 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 its action for annulment of the Council’s note of 24 November 2022 informing the applicant of the findings and consequences of the verification procedure opened against it pursuant to the agreement of 28 March 2006 concluded between the Council of the European Union and the trade unions or professional organisations of the staff of the General Secretariat of the Council (‘the agreement’), the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging breach of the agreement and of the engagement letter. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging breach of the agreement and of the engagement letter.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging breach of the spirit of sincere cooperation resulting from the agreement, the principle of good administration and the principle of performance in good faith of agreements. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging breach of the spirit of sincere cooperation resulting from the agreement, the principle of good administration and the principle of performance in good faith of agreements.

---
STATE v. William BUHL.

No. 82P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 10, 2008.

Kimberly Duffley, Assistant Attorney General, Jeff Hunt, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 12th day of February 2008 by Defendant for Appropriate Relief:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference this the 10th day of April 2008."
# The Immigration (European Economic Area) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2014 (revoked)

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

Statutory Instruments

# 2014 No. 1976

Immigration

# The Immigration (European Economic Area) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2014 (revoked)F1

Made

23rd July 2014

Laid before Parliament

25th July 2014

Coming into force

28th July 2014

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

F1Regulations revoked (1.2.2017 for specified purposes) by The Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016 (S.I. 2016/1052), **Sch. 4 para. 1**
# The Control of Explosives Precursors Regulations 2014 (revoked)

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

Statutory Instruments

# 2014 No. 1942

Health And Safety

# The Control of Explosives Precursors Regulations 2014 (revoked)F1

Made

18th July 2014

Laid before Parliament

24th July 2014

Coming into force

2nd September 2014

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

F1Regulations revoked (26.5.2015) by The Deregulation Act 2015 (Poisons and Explosives Precursors) (Consequential Amendments, Revocations and Transitional Provisions)                                 Order 2015 (S.I. 2015/968), **art. 4(c)** (with art. 5)
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                   5
       
<S>                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                               9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                      170,693
<SECURITIES>                                12,917,191
<RECEIVABLES>                               1,401,990
<ALLOWANCES>                                0
<INVENTORY>                                 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            14,489,874
<PP&E>                                      1,595,283
<DEPRECIATION>                              (898,397)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              15,186,760
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       5,949,469
<BONDS>                                     0
<COMMON>                                    280
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<OTHER-SE>                                  9,237,011
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                15,186,760
<SALES>                                     11,207,631
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            11,207,631
<CGS>                                       8,390,458
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               8,390,458
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            2,185,508
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          292,162
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             339,503
<INCOME-TAX>                                151,621
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         0
<DISCONTINUED>                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                                187,882
<EPS-PRIMARY>                               0.07
<EPS-DILUTED>                               0.07
        

                       

<PAGE>

</TABLE>