alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 850/2014Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 850/2014 of 4 August 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 850/2014                     

# of 4 August 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, 4 August 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 21.1

SUBSIDIARIES OF RADICA GAMES LIMITED




                                                     State or Country
Name of Subsidiary                                   in Which Organized
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

UNITED STATES

Radica Enterprises Ltd                               Nevada
(Operates as Radica USA Ltd)
 - Leda Media Products Ltd (dormant)                 UK

Disc, Inc.                                           Nevada
(Operates as Radica Innovations)


INTERNATIONAL

Radica Limited                                       Hong Kong
 - Radica China Ltd                                  British Virgin Islands
     - Dongguan Radica Games Manufactory Co. Ltd     People's Republic of China
 - RadMex S.A. de C.V. (dormant)                     Mexico

Radica Sales (HK) Ltd                                Hong Kong

Radica Innovations (UK) Ltd                          UK

Radica Europe Ltd                                    UK
 - Radica U.K. Ltd                                   UK
     - LMP (HK) Ltd (dormant)                        Hong Kong
Amendment 4 to the Second Letter of Amendment to the Master Services Agreement



  
 Exhibit 10.3

 September 30, 2010 

 

 

 David Cathcart 

Chief Financial Officer 
 TRX, Inc. 

2970 Clairmont Road 
 Suite 300 

Atlanta, GA 30329 
  

	Re:	Amendment 4 to Second Letter of Amendment 

 Dear
David: 
 The purpose of this letter is to amend the Second Letter of Amendment dated December 23, 2009 as amended on June 7,
2010, July 30, 2010, and August 30, 2010. Effective September 30, 2010, Expedia and TRX now agree to amend the Second Letter of Amendment as follows: 
 Section 3 is hereby deleted and replaced with the following: 
 3)
Renewal of Pricing and Exclusivity for 2011. The pricing and exclusivity terms set forth in Section 1 and Section 2 of this Second Letter of Amendment will automatically be extended for calendar year 2011 unless either Party gives
the other Party written notice of non-renewal of such terms on or before October 15, 2010. If such notice is given, Section 1 and Section 2 will cease to apply, effective December 31, 2010, and the pricing terms under the
Agreement (and associated SOWs) that were in place prior to this Second Letter of Amendment will apply in calendar year 2011. 
 Please
acknowledge your agreement to the foregoing by signing in the space provided below and returning a signed copy to me as soon as possible. If you do not agree with any of the foregoing, please contact me as soon as possible so that we can determine
how best to proceed. 
  

	
	Yours truly,
	
	Expedia, Inc.
	
	/s/ Dominique Bourgault
	 Dominique Bourgault
 Vice
President, Finance – Partner Services Group



  

			
	Acknowledged and Agreed:
	
	TRX, Inc.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ David D. Cathcart

	Title:	 	 Chief Financial Officer



			
	Date Signed:	 	 30 September 2010
<PAGE>


                                                                    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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of LIN
Television Corporation for the quarter ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, Gary R. Chapman, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, William A.
Cunningham, Vice President and Controller, Deborah R. Jacobson, Vice President
of Corporate Development and Treasurer, and Peter E. Maloney, Vice President of
Finance, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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 results of operations of
the Company.

    Dated: May 10, 2004             /s/ Gary R. Chapman
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    Gary R. Chapman
                                    Chief Executive Officer

    Dated: May 10, 2004             /s/ William A. Cunningham
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    William A. Cunningham
                                    Vice President and Controller

    Dated: May 10, 2004             /s/ Deborah R. Jacobson
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    Deborah R. Jacobson
                                    Vice President of Corporate Development and
                                    Treasurer

    Dated: May 10, 2004             /s/ Peter E. Maloney
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    Peter E. Maloney
                                    Vice President of Finance
----

(2004/C 33 E/165)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1762/03

by Adriana Poli Bortone (UEN) to the Commission

(21 May 2003)

Subject:   Discrimination between workers loading and unloading goods in Greece

Having received a large number of complaints, I should like to draw the Commission's attention to the fact that in Greece the job of loading and unloading goods is still governed by a law dating back to 1949 (Law No 1254) under which anyone wishing to engage in this occupation must first be entered in a register kept, without any clear rules, by an association which, according to the complaints received, frequently discriminates between applicants.

Does the Commission consider this situation to be in keeping with current common market rules?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(20 June 2003)

The Commission wishes to point out to the Honourable Member that as a general rule and according to the jurisprudence a service provider has the right to employ personnel of his own choice.

The Commission, following informal contacts with the Greek authorities has been informed that the Law 1254/1949 does not in itself allow for the discriminations described in her written question.

However, the Commission invites the Honourable Member to submit to it any details, which may allow the conclusion that discrimination and abuses stemming from the application of Law 1254/1949 are occurring. In this case the Commission would be willing to investigate this matter in depth, in order to assess what action should be taken.

In any case, the Commission wishes to remind to the Honourable Member of its proposal for a Directive of the Parliament and of the Council on Market Access to Port Services, aiming at creating a level playing field in this area and further ensuring the full respect of the rules of the Treaty, for all parties concerned, workers, service providers and port users

----
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

            For purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, Anthony
Principe, the chief financial officer of On2 Technologies, Inc. (the "Company"),
hereby certifies that, to his knowledge:

            (i) the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the year
            ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
            Commission on the date hereof (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.


                                             By: /s/ ANTHONY PRINCIPE
                                                 -------------------------------
                                                 Anthony Principe
                                                 Chief Financial Officer
                                                 On2 Technologies, Inc.


March 17, 2005
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

______________________________

No. 06-08-00186-CR

______________________________

DESMOND DENARD BROWN, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

 

On Appeal from the 124th Judicial District Court

 Gregg County, Texas

Trial Court No. 34661-B

 

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Desmond Denard Brown filed pro se a notice of appeal August 26, 2008, appealing from a

judgment that imposed his sentence December 12, 2006. 

A timely notice of appeal is necessary to invoke this Court's jurisdiction. Olivo v. State, 918

S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). Rule 26.2(a) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure

prescribes the time period in which a notice of appeal must be filed by a defendant in order to perfect

appeal in a criminal case. A defendant's notice of appeal is timely if filed within thirty days after the

day sentence is imposed or suspended in open court, or within ninety days after sentencing if the

defendant timely files a motion for new trial. TEX.R.APP. P. 26.2(a); Olivo, 918 S.W.2d at 522. No

motion for new trial was filed. The last date Brown could timely file his notice of appeal was

January 11, 2007, thirty days after the day the sentence was imposed in open court. SeeTEX.R.APP.

P. 26.2(a)(1). 

In addition to the notice of appeal being untimely filed, the certification of right of appeal

shows that Brown waived his right of appeal.

Unless a certification, showing that a defendant has the right of appeal, is in the record, we

must dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d). Because the trial court's certification

affirmatively shows Brown has no right of appeal, and because the record before us does not reflect

that the certification is incorrect, see Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610, 615 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005),

we must dismiss the appeal.
3

Brown has failed to perfect his appeal. We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Josh R. Morriss, III

Chief Justice

Date Submitted: September 3, 2008

Date Decided: September 4, 2008

Do Not Publish
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 20 2 3

- 1848

_____________________________ C HRISTOPHER L O NEA L , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the County Court for Columbia County

. Sara J. Carter , Judge

. April 2, 2024

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
L EWIS , R OWE , and M.K. T HOMAS , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender, and Jasmine R. Dixon
, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee
, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Appellee

.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7693

WALLACE MITCHELL,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

RICHARD A. LANHAM, SR.; THOMAS CORCORAN; J.

SWIVEL, Case Manager; WILLIAM O. FILBERT, JR.;

CAPTAIN MOORE; CAPTAIN TOBASH; CYNTHIA

SIMMONS, Case Manager; KENNETH OLIVER, Correctional Officer; L. MACK, Disciplinary Hearing

Officer; RONALD SINGLETARY, Correction Guard;

D. SMITH, Sergeant, in their personal and professional capacities; STATE OF MARYLAND; DIVISION OF CORRECTION; D. MATTHEWS, Officer, in

her personal and professional capacity,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CA-96-

3182-L)

Submitted: October 20, 1998 Decided: November 3, 1998

Before WILKINS and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
2

Wallace Mitchell, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Toni-Jean Lisa, Gloria Selena Wilson-Shelton,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland,

for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998) complaint and district

court’s order denying Appellant’s motion for reconsideration. We

have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find

no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the

district court. Mitchell v. Lanham, No. CA-96-3182-L (D. Md. Oct.

9 & Nov. 10, 1997). We deny Appellant’s “Motion for a Ruling on the

Non-contested Appeal” because the Appellees were not required to

file an appellate brief. See generally 4th Cir. Local R. 34(b). 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.

AFFIRMED
STATE v. Raymond Alan GRIFFIN.

No. 322P15-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Oct. 21, 2015.

Raymond Alan Griffin, Raleigh, for Griffin, Raymond Alan.

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

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 13th of October 2015 by Petitioner for Appeal of Habeas Corpus:

> "Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 21st of October 2015."
# CE2004070EN.01024201.xml

| 20.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 70/242 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 70/242

---

(2004/C 70 E/262)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3235/03

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

(3 November 2003)

Subject:   Incentives to invest in EU-related bonds

Subject:

The Fifteen have advocated kick-starting growth in the European Union by increasing both public and private investment in infrastructure, R&D and innovation.

It is a well-known fact that, besides being one of the main driving forces for progress in the EU, the European Investment Bank (EIB) is responsible for much of the EU's infrastructure development, which is why encouraging people to take part in its public bond issues is of particular importance.

Does the Commission believe that, once the relevant studies have been conducted, it should look into the most appropriate means of encouraging Community citizens to take a greater interest in EIB bonds as their contribution to the so-called Lisbon strategy, which seeks to make the EU the world's most dynamic economy?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(2 December 2003)

(2 December 2003)

The European Investment Bank (EIB) is among the world's largest debt issuers, raising EUR 41 billion so far this year, within the target set for 2003 (EUR 40 to 42 billion). In only five years, annual borrowings by the Bank have almost doubled.

This growing funding need, in line with the Bank's lending growth, has been conducted according to a consistent and balanced borrowing strategy. This strategy involves a proactive approach to addressing both institutional and retail investors, both of which play an important role as buyers of EIB securities.

As concerns the specific involvement of Union citizens in EIB bond issues, it is important to note that EIB enjoys a strong following in the European retail market. Retail investors buy a very wide variety of EIB bonds, but certain bond issues respond to the specific requirements of retail investors.

Marketing to retail investors needs to be carefully balanced against marketing to institutional investors, who remain central to the success of EIB's bond issuance as well as the subsequent performance of EIB bonds in the secondary market, in itself a key consideration. Also, the substantial costs of certain types of retail marketing, for example through advertising, are an important consideration.

In conclusion, EIB's approach to retail investors in the Union is already well developed and suitably supportive of its objectives as a ‘policy driven public bank’. However, this needs to be seen in the context of the leading role played by institutional investors in the debt capital markets in Europe. Nonetheless, EIB continues to explore opportunities for further sustainable development of this strategy, taking account of fast evolving market conditions.

---
*

This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited,

however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th

Cir. R. 32.1.

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

August 14, 2008

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

DENNIS LEON SMITH, BRUCE

CLYDE SMITH,

Plaintiffs - Appellants, No. 08-1166

v. (D. Colorado)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA;

STATE OF COLORADO; STATE OF

OKLAHOMA; STATE OF KANSAS;

STATE OF NEW MEXICO; STATE

OF TEXAS, and John and Jane Does

1-50,

Defendants - Appellees.

(D.C. No. 07-CV-1446-ZLW)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before BRISCOE, MURPHY, and HARTZ, Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this court has determined

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is

therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
-2-

Appellants Dennis Smith and Bruce Smith initiated an action in the United

States District Court for the District of Colorado by filing a document captioned,

“Private Case to Appropriate Suitor’s Superior Claim.” The matter was dismissed

without prejudice on August 22, 2007, after Appellants failed to comply with the

district court’s order instructing them to cure deficiencies. Eight months later

Appellants filed a document with the district court titled, “Notice of Conditions

Precedent.” The court entered a minute order finding the document both

inappropriate and incomprehensible. Appellants were warned that any further

inappropriate pleadings they file in the matter will be stricken.

Appellants filed a pro se notice of appeal seeking to challenge the district

court’s minute order. Their appellate briefs do not contain any reasoned

argument that the court’s minute order is a final decision under 28 U.S.C. § 1291

or immediately appealable under any exception to the final judgment rule. 

Appellants do not assert that they have been prevented from filing any additional

pleadings with the district court or argue that their document titled “Notice of

Conditions Precedent” is a properly filed motion pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for lack
-3-

of appellate jurisdiction. Dennis Smith’s motion and Bruce Smith’s motion

seeking to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal are denied. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Michael R. Murphy

Circuit Judge
# C_2008197EN.01003603.xml

| 2.8.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 197/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 197/36

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 5 June 2008 — Cegelec v Parliament

(Case T-104/05) (1)

1

(2008/C 197/67)

Language of the case: French

Language of the case: French

The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 106, 30.4.2005.

1

---