alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 86/2014Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 86/2014 of 30 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 86/2014                     

# of 30 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, 30 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.
Exhibit 10.1





Exhibit 10.1




Executive Compensation Notification

Chairman and Chief Executive Officer




2011 Fiscal Year Compensation Program of Chairman and Chief Executive Officer.



2011 Fiscal Year Base Salaries: Table I below sets forth the 2011 fiscal year base salaries
for Mr. Horton and Mr. Tomnitz.



Table I




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	Annual Base Salary	 	 	Performance Bonus
	Name	 	Office	 	(2011 Fiscal Year)	 	 	(2011 Fiscal Year)
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Donald R. Horton
	 	Chairman of the Board	 	$	1,000,000	 	 	See Below
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Donald J. Tomnitz
	 	Vice Chairman, President and CEO	 	$	900,000	 	 	See Below






2011 Fiscal Year Annual Performance Bonus: The Compensation Committee approved
performance-based goals for measuring short-term performance bonuses that may be earned by Mr.
Horton and Mr. Tomnitz during the 2011 fiscal year. The 2011 performance goals were established
under the Company’s 2000 Amended and Restated Incentive Bonus Plan. The 2011 fiscal year
performance goal for Mr. Horton and Mr. Tomnitz relates to consolidated pre-tax income as set forth
below.



Annual Performance Bonus — Performance related to Pre-Tax Income:




Under the 2011 fiscal year performance bonus program, each of Mr. Horton and Mr. Tomnitz has
the opportunity to earn the following performance-based bonus:




	 	(1)	 	2.0% of Pre-Tax Income of the Company for the quarter ending December 31, 2010 (but not below $0).
	 
	 	(2)	 	2.0% of Pre-Tax Income of the Company for the quarter ending March 31, 2011 (but not below $0).
	 
	 	(3)	 	2.0% of Pre-Tax Income of the Company for the quarter ending June 30, 2011 (but not below $0).
	 
	 	(4)	 	2.0% of Pre-Tax Income of the Company for the quarter ending September 30, 2011 (but not below $0).




 


 









 





“Pre-Tax Income” shall mean income before income taxes, as publicly reported by the Company in
its quarterly or annual financial statements, as applicable, prepared in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles. The financial statements shall mean the consolidated financial
statements of the Company.



At the end of the 2011 fiscal year, the Committee may use its sole discretion to adjust
downward, in part or in whole, the Annual Performance Bonus based on performance of the Company,
including based on total annual Pre-Tax Income, and performance of the participant.



Other Long-Term Benefits.




Consistent with prior years, Mr. Horton and Mr. Tomnitz may participate in two separate
deferred compensation plans. The first plan allows the executive to make voluntary income
deferrals. The second plan is a promise by the Company to pay retirement benefits to the executive.
Furthermore, if the executive is employed by the Company on the last day of the current fiscal
year (for example September 30, 2011), then the Company will establish a liability to him equal to
10% of his annual base salary as of the first day of the current fiscal year (for example October
1, 2010). This liability will accrue earnings in future years at a rate established by the
administrative committee.
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 Chinawe.com Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Man Keung Alan Wai, Chief Executive Officer
of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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; 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/ Man Keung Alan Wai  | 
|----------------------- | 
|Chief Executive Officer | 
|April 14, 2016          | 



A signed original of this written statement
required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed
form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Chinawe.com Inc. and
will be retained by Chinawe.com Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.2 Orthodontic Centers of America, Inc.
Certification Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 I, David E. Verret, certify that:  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Orthodontic Centers of
America, 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 registrant
as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer 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 registrant 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 registrant, 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 registrant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 registrants internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most
recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting;
and  5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrant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 registrant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 registrants internal control over
financial reporting. May 20, 2004
    Date:/s/  David E. VerretDavid E. VerretSenior Vice President of Finance and
Chief Financial Officer
# CE2004078EN.01036201.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/362 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/362

---

(2004/C 78 E/0381)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1230/03

by Freddy Blak (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(2 April 2003)

Subject:   Enhanced legal cooperation

Subject:

Following a visit to a Danish national who is imprisoned in Spain, I now realise that European legal cooperation leaves much to be desired. The person concerned has been in prison since 28 November 2001 accused of murder. On 14 January 2002, the accused's lawyer sent an international court order to the Spanish Ministry of Justice, to be forwarded in turn to the Danish Ministry of Justice, with a view to summoning a witness for questioning. More than a year later, this international court order has still not left the Spanish Ministry of Justice.

It is appalling that such sluggish procedures can delay and prolong legal cases. To date, no formal charge has yet been made against the accused.

Will the Commission therefore say what initiatives it intends to take to enhance European cooperation in this field?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2003)

(15 May 2003)

The Commission has no competence to intervene with regard to the detention by the Spanish authorities of a Danish citizen accused of murder to which the Honourable Member refers in his question, which falls entirely within the responsibility of the Member States concerned.

In the event that an excessive length of detention is regarded by the individual as a possible breach of his or her rights under the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR), he or she has — after all domestic remedies have been exhausted — the right to make an application to the European Court of Human Rights.

It should, also, be noted that the Commission currently is considering the question of pre-trial detention and alternatives to such detention at a European level. This initiative is based on the Programme of measures to implement the principle of mutual recognition of decisions in criminal matters (1). A Green Paper on this issue will be published later in 2003.

1

On 19 February 2003 the Commission also published a Green Paper on Procedural Safeguards for Suspects and Defendants in Criminal Proceedings throughout the Union (2). The Green Paper on Procedural Safeguards focuses on the right to legal assistance and representation, the right to a competent, qualified interpreter and/or translator, proper protection for especially vulnerable categories, consular assistance and the knowledge of the existence of rights (‘letter of rights’).

2

The 2000 Union Convention on mutual assistance in criminal matters will certainly contribute to the improvement of the transmission and execution of letters rogatory. It has, however, so far only been ratified by two Member States. It will enter into force after eight ratifications.

---

(1)  In particular measures 9 and 10, OJ C 12, 15.1.2001.

1

(2)  COM(2003) 75 final.

2

---
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6414

THEODORE SHOEMAKER, Petitioner - Appellant, versus WILLIAM HAINES, Warden, Huttonsville Correctional Center, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. W. Craig Broadwater, District Judge. (CA-01-20) Submitted: April 24, 2003 Decided: May 5, 2003 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Theodore Shoemaker, Appellant Pro Se. Dawn Ellen Warfield, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Theodore Shoemaker seeks to appeal from the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). When, as here, the lower court dismisses a § 2254 petition solely on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability will not issue unless the petitioner can demonstrate both “(1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right’ and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.’” Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir.) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)), cert. denied , 534 U.S. 941 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Shoemaker has not satisfied this standard. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 123 S. Ct. 1029, 1040 (2003). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
ghst_ex102.htm


 



EXHIBIT 10.2












Summary of CEO and CFO Compensation Arrangements












Gianfranco Gracchi receives $10,000 per month for his service as Chief Executive Officer of Ghost.







Cristina Avramut receives $1,500 per month for her service as Chief Financial Officer of Ghost.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted
from the consolidated financial statements of Twin City Bancorp,
Inc. and Subsidiaries in the filing to which this schedule is an
exhibit and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
<MULTIPLIER>  1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                       2,308
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                       4,508
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                 0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 19,521
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             0
<LOANS>                                     78,603
<ALLOWANCE>                                    109
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             110,366
<DEPOSITS>                                  91,972
<SHORT-TERM>                                     0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          1,823
<LONG-TERM>                                  2,500
<COMMON>                                     1,260
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<OTHER-SE>                                  12,811
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             110,366
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              1,762
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              326
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                63
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             2,151
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           1,069
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,083
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        1,068
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   45
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                              13
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                734
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                469
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     284
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                   284
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                   0
<LOANS-NON>                                      0
<LOANS-PAST>                                     0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                 0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 0
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    0
<RECOVERIES>                                     0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                0
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                              0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          0
        

</TABLE>
STATE v. STONE.

No. COA08-298.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed October 21, 2008.

Certification Date November 10, 2008.

Appeal from Moore (07CRS2211, 06CRS2474).

Case reported without published opinion. No error in part; Reversed in part and remanded for resentencing.
STATE of North Carolina v. Salvador QUINONEZ.

No. 227P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Aug. 20, 2015.

Ann B. Petersen, for Quinonez, Salvador.

Benjamin J. Kull, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

R. Andrew Murray, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 7th of July 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 20th of August 2015."
CARTER NEIGHBORS LIMITED, Plaintiff, v. The EDWIN RECTOR 1995 CHARITABLE TRUST and Edwin Rector, Defendants, The Edwin Rector 1995 Charitable Trust, by and through its Trustee, Edwin Rector, Third Party Plaintiff, v. Sun Raye Financial Company Incorporated, a North Carolina Corporation, Carter Neighbors Limited, a North Carolina Corporation d/b/a Sonny's Used Cars, Lannie Dean Carter, Jr., George K. Clardy, Jr., and Eagle Services and Towing LLC, d/b/a Eagle Auto, Third Party Defendants.

No. COA14-1212.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Aug. 18, 2015.

**CASE REPORTED WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
----

(2004/C 65 E/168)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2438/03

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(22 July 2003)

Subject:   Abolition of visas for journeys by immigrants from third countries legally resident in Switzerland

The Swiss Industry and Construction Union and the Swiss Forum for the integration of migrants stress the need to abolish visas for immigrants from States not belonging to the European Union who are resident in that country.

Around half a million residents of Switzerland who come from countries which are not EU Member States are still required to obtain a visa whenever they wish to travel to their country or to a State in the Schengen area, which entails costs in terms of both time and money.

Even though the situation has certainly improved, since the visas now have a longer duration, the underlying problem remains.

Can the Commission say what measures it will take, following on from the earlier issues which have now been partially resolved, with a view to abolishing the visa requirement for residents of Switzerland who come from countries which are not members of the European Union, in the context of reciprocal measures, given that in August 2000 Switzerland abolished the visa requirement for citizens of a third country legally resident in the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(3 September 2003)

The Commission's attention has already been drawn (1) to the situation of third-country nationals residing in Switzerland who, because of their nationality (2), must be in possession of a visa when travelling to a Schengen State or when simply passing through a Schengen State on their way to their country of origin.

This matter has been examined by the competent group in the Council, the ‘visa’ group, which came to the conclusion that the Schengen acquis does not prevent multiple-transit visas with a lengthy period of validity from being issued to those residents. The consular departments of the Member States have been informed of this possibility, which, as the Honourable Member acknowledges, is a step in the right direction in that it cuts down on the number of visits made to consulates to apply for visas.

That said, the Commission is still considering a solution that would exempt third-country nationals in possession of residence documents for Switzerland from the visa requirement for passing through Schengen States or even for making short stays there. Such a solution would, in any event, necessitate amendments to the Schengen acquis.

----

(1)  Written Question No E-0557/02 by Mr Imbeni and Mr Pittella, OJ C 229 E, 26.9.2002.

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 of 15 March 2001 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement, OJ L 81, 21.3.2001.

----
HOUSEHOLD REALTY CORP. v. CROWDER.

No. COA07-1467.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed July 15, 2008.

Certification Date August 4, 2008.

Appeal from Guilford (04CVD8014).

Case reported without published opinion. Dismissed.