alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 229/2014Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 229/2014 of 10 March 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 229/2014                     

# of 10 March 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, 10 March 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.
STATE of North Carolina v. Floyd HADDOCK, Jr.

No. 523P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 24, 2008.

Floyd Haddock, Jr., for Haddock.

Robert Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, Clark Everett, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 18th day of October 2007 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Pitt County, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court of that County:

"Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 24th day of January 2008."
**Exhibit
31.1**
   **CERTIFICATION**
   
  I,
Kenneth Plotkin, certify that:
 
 1.
    I
      have reviewed this Form 10-Q of Hauppauge Digital,
Inc.;
  2.  Based on
my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading
with respect to the period covered by this report;
 
 3.  Based on
my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included
in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the issuer as of, and for, the periods
presented in this report;
 
 4.  The
issuer’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(e) and 15d-15-(e)) for the issuer and have:
 
 a)
    Designed
      such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
      controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure
      that material information relating to the issuer, including its
      consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
      entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
      prepared;
 
 b)
    Evaluated
      the effectiveness of the issuer’s disclosure controls and procedures and
      presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
      disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by
      this report based on such evaluation; and
 
 c)
    Disclosed
      in this report any change in the issuer’s internal control over financial
      reporting that occurred during the issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter
      (the issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that
      has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
      issuer’s internal control over financial reporting;
and
 
 5.  The
issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the issuer’s
auditors and the audit committee of the issuer’s board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):
 
 a)
    All
      significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
      operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
      reasonably likely to adversely affect the issuer’s ability to record,
      process, summarize and report financial information;
and
 
 b)
    Any
      fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
      employees who have a significant role in the issuer’s internal control
      over financial reporting.
  Date:   May 13,
      2005
    
    /s/ Kenneth
  PlotkinKenneth PlotkinChief
      Executive Officer
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 664 

To provide adequate funding for local governments harmed by Hurricane 

Katrina of 2005 or Hurricane Rita of 2005. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 16, 2007 

Ms. LANDRIEU (for herself, Mr. LIEBERMAN, Mr. REID, and Mr. STEVENS) 

introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To provide adequate funding for local governments harmed 

by Hurricane Katrina of 2005 or Hurricane Rita of 2005. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Local Government Dis5 aster Relief Act of 2007’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FEDERAL SHARE. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provi8 sion of law, the Federal share of any assistance provided 

9 under section 406 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Re10 lief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5172) bemstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

2 

•S 664 IS

1 cause of Hurricane Katrina of 2005 or Hurricane Rita 

2 of 2005 shall be 100 percent. 

3 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This section shall apply to 

4 any assistance provided under section 406 of the Robert 

5 T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act 

6 (42 U.S.C. 5172) on or after August 28, 2005. 

Æ 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Aurello Barnes, Also Known as Escalante Barnes, Appellant.

[799 NYS2d 421]

Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a decision and order of this Court dated December 17, 2001 *(People v Barnes,*289 AD2d 413 [2001]), affirming a judgment and amended judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, both rendered January 7, 2000.

Ordered that the application is denied.

The appellant has failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel *(see Jones v Barnes,*463 US 745 [1983]; *People v Stultz,*2 NY3d 277 [2004]). Prudenti, P.J., H. Miller, S. Miller and Crane, JJ., concur.
TEAGUE v. NCDOT et al.

No. 281P06-6.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

July 22, 2008.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 18th day of July 2008 by Plaintiff for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference this the 22nd day of July 2008."

EDMUNDS, J., recused.
### NUMBER 13 - 18 - 00048 - CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________ FIRST UNITED METHODI ST CHURCH , A ppellant ,

v. CHURCH MUTUAL INSURA NCE COMPANY, BLAKE MEARS, ZACHARY PIERCE AND L EADING EDGE CLAIMS SERVICE , A ppellee s .

____________________________________________________________ On a ppeal from the 414 th District Court of McLennan County, Texas.

______________________________________________________ ______ 

### ORDER OF ABATEMENT Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Hinojosa and Tijerina Order Per CuriamAppellant First United Methodist Church filed this appeal on December 29, 2017 complaining that the trial court improperly determined that its causes of action against appellee Church Mutual Insurance Company were not viable because appellee paid an apprai sal award to appellant. The parties timely submitted their briefs in this matter. On June 28, 2019, appellant notified the Court that on that day, the Texas Supreme Court handed down its opinions in Barbara Technologies Corp. v. State Farm Lloyds , No. 17

- 0640, 2019 WL 2710089, ___ S.W.3d ___ (Tex. June 28, 2019) and Ortiz v. State Farm Lloyds , No. 17

- 1048, 2019 WL 2710032, ___ S.W.3d ___ (Tex. June 28, 2019). Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.7 provides that “[a] brief may be amended or supple mented whenever justice requires, on whatever reasonable terms the court may prescribe.” Tex. R. App. P. 38.7. Given the dimension of the issues raised in this case, the Court has determined that additional briefing is necessary. Accordingly, the Court hereby requests supplemental briefing from the parties regarding the effect of Barbara Technologies Corp. v. State Farm Lloyds , and Ortiz v. State Farm Lloyds , have on this case. Appellant’s supplemental brief shall be filed within twenty

- one days from th e date of this order, and appellee’s supplemental brief, if any, shall be filed within fourteen days thereafter. This appeal is abated and removed from the Court’s active docket until receipt of the requested briefing.
I T IS SO ORDERED. PER CURIA M

D elivered and filed the 28th day of October , 20 1 9

.
# C_2023063EN.01006401.xml

| 20.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/64 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/64

---

Action brought on 30 December 2022 — TZ v Council

(Case T-803/22)

(2023/C 63/81)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: TZ (represented by: J. Janssen, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | admit and uphold the pleas for annulment raised in the present application; |
| --- | --- |

—

admit and uphold the pleas for annulment raised in the present application;

| — | annul Chapter III of Council Regulation (EU) 2022/1854 of 6 October 2022 on an emergency intervention to address high energy prices (1) (‘contested Regulation’); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Chapter III of Council Regulation (EU) 2022/1854 of 6 October 2022 on an emergency intervention to address high energy prices (1) (‘contested Regulation’);

| — | in the alternative, annul Article 15 of the contested Regulation insofar as it allows the retroactive levy of a solidarity contribution over the year 2022; and |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul Article 15 of the contested Regulation insofar as it allows the retroactive levy of a solidarity contribution over the year 2022; and

| — | order the Council to pay the costs of this procedure. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council to pay the costs of this procedure.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the contested Regulation was incorrectly adopted on the basis of article 122(1) TFEU and should have been adopted by the Council, acting unanimously after consulting the European Parliament and in accordance with a special legislative procedure, as the contested Regulation contains fiscal measures. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the contested Regulation was incorrectly adopted on the basis of article 122(1) TFEU and should have been adopted by the Council, acting unanimously after consulting the European Parliament and in accordance with a special legislative procedure, as the contested Regulation contains fiscal measures.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the contested Regulation constitutes a violation of the right to property as enshrined in Article 1 First Protocol to the ECHR and Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, as well as the EU principles of legality and legal certainty, insofar the contested Regulation allows for retroactive application. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the contested Regulation constitutes a violation of the right to property as enshrined in Article 1 First Protocol to the ECHR and Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, as well as the EU principles of legality and legal certainty, insofar the contested Regulation allows for retroactive application.

---

(1)  OJ 2022, L 261 I, p. 1.

---
**Exhibit 3.2**

 

**CERTIFICATE OF OWNERSHIP AND MERGER**

**OF**

**INTERMEC, INC.**

**(a Delaware corporation)**

**INTO**

**UNOVA, INC.**

**(a Delaware corporation)**

 

Itis hereby certified that:

 

1.                   UNOVA, Inc. (hereinafter sometimes referred to as the “Corporation”)is a business corporation of the State of Delaware.

 

2.               The Corporation is the owner of all of theoutstanding shares of the stock of Intermec, Inc., which is also abusiness corporation of the State of Delaware.

 

3.               On September 8, 2005, the Board ofDirectors of the Corporation adopted the following resolutions to mergeIntermec, Inc. into the Corporation:

 

**NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED**, that Intermec, Inc. be merged into this Corporation pursuant to Section 253of the Delaware General Corporation Law, and that all of the estate, property,rights, privileges, powers and franchises of Intermec, Inc. be vested inand held and enjoyed by this Corporation as fully and entirely and withoutchange or diminution as the same were before held and enjoyed by Intermec, Inc.in its name and that this Corporation shall assume all of the obligations ofIntermec, Inc.

 

**RESOLVED FURTHER,** that in conjunction with such merger, this Corporation shall changeits corporate name to “Intermec, Inc.” and that Article I of theCertificate of Incorporation of this Corporation shall be amended to read asfollows:

 

Thename of the corporation (which is hereinafter referred to as the “Corporation”)is:

 

Intermec, Inc.

 

**RESOLVED FURTHER,** that this Corporation shall cause to be executed and filed and/or recordedthe documents prescribed by the laws of the State of Delaware and by the lawsof any other appropriate jurisdiction and will cause to be performed allnecessary acts within the State of Delaware and any other appropriatejurisdiction in connection with such merger and change of corporate name.

 

**RESOLVED FURTHER**,that the Certificate of Ownership and Merger setting forth a copy of theseresolutions, and the merger therein provided for, shall become effective when suchCertificate is filed with the State of Delaware.

 

----

 

4.               The Corporation requests that thisCertificate of Ownership and Merger and the merger herein provided for be madeeffective on January 1, 2006.

 

 

 
| Executed  on December 1, 2005 | UNOVA, INC.                       |
|------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|
|                               |                                   |
|                               |                                   |
|                               | By:                                    | /s/  Cathy D. Younger |   |
|                               | Cathy  D. Younger                      |
|                               | Vice President and Corporate Secretary |

 

----
<PAGE>   1

                                                                EXHIBIT 10.1

                              AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE
                                       TO
                              EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


        The Employment Agreement entered into on August 25, 1994, by and
between Alan Grossberg, (hereinafter the "Employee") and Nickelodeon Theater
Co., Inc., is hereby amended as follows:

        WHEREAS, the name of Nickelodeon Theater Co., Inc. was changed by
amendment to the Company's Article of Incorporation on August 25, 1995, to
CinemaStar Luxury Theaters, Inc., (hereinafter the "Company"); and

        WHEREAS, the Company by and through its Board of Directors believes it
to be in the best interests of the Company to extend the Employment Agreement
of Employee; and

        WHEREAS, the Company is desirous of having Employee rescind his Film
Booking Agreement with Company, also entered into on August 25, 1994, so that
he can spend full time at his duties as the Company's Senior Vice President and
Chief Operating Officer;

        NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of these premises and the promises
herein made, the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree
as follows:

1.      As an inducement for Employee to remain in the employ of Company as its
Senior Vice President and Chief Operating Officer, and for a period of time
beyond the term specified in the Employment Agreement of August 25, 1994,
Company hereby agrees to extend the term of that Agreement for a period of five
(5) years commencing upon the execution hereof by the parties, unless sooner
terminated in accordance with other provisions of the Employment Agreement that
is amended hereby.

2.      Paragraph 2. of the Employment Agreement of August 25, 1994 is
therefore deleted in its entirety.

3.      The first sentence of Paragraph 4. (a) entitled, "Base Salary" is
deleted in its entirety and the following is substituted in lieu thereof:
"Company shall pay Employee a base salary in the amount of $52,000 more per
year than Employee's present base salary, the sum of which amounts shall be
payable in periodic installments in accordance with Company's prevailing policy
for compensating personnel, but not less often than semi-monthly."

                                  Page 1 of 2
<PAGE>   2
4.      Except for the modifications specified in this Amendment Number One,
all of the remaining terms and conditions of the Employment Agreement shall
remain in full force and effect for the newly stated term of this Amendment
Number One. 

        IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have duly executed this Amendment
Number One on this fifth day of December, 1996.

"Company"                                       "Employee"

CinemaStar Luxury Theaters, Inc.
a California corporation

By: /s/ John Ellison, Jr.                        /s/ Alan Grossberg
   -----------------------------                 -----------------------------
   John Ellison, Jr.                             Alan Grossberg 
   President &
   Chief Executive Officer


                                  Page 2 of 2
* 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. 06-60180

Summary Calendar

SAMSON TAIWO DADA

Petitioner

v.

MICHAEL B MUKASEY, U S ATTORNEY GENERAL

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A78 129 270

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

This court previously denied Dada’s petition for review. Dada v. Gonzales,

207 F. App’x 425 (5th Cir. 2006), cert. granted, Dada v. Keisler, 128 S. Ct. 36

(2007). The Supreme Court of the United States reversed and remanded the

case for further consideration. Dada v. Mukasey, 128 S. Ct. 2307 (2008). At this

court’s request, the parties filed supplemental letter briefs, in which they agree

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 18, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 06-60180

2

that the case should be remanded to the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Accordingly, the petition for review is GRANTED, and the case is REMANDED

to the Board of Immigration Appeals for further proceedings in the light of the

Supreme Court’s opinion.

REMANDED.