alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# CE2004088EN.01039301.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/393 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/393

---

(2004/C 88 E/0399)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2231/03

by Bill Newton Dunn (ELDR) to the Commission

(3 July 2003)

Subject:   Human rights abuses in Burma

Subject:

The Commission will be aware of the human rights abuses which continue in Burma, particularly the detention of Aung San Suu Kyi.

Has the Commission:

| 1. | made representations to the Burmese Government? |
| --- | --- |

1.

made representations to the Burmese Government?

| 2. | any other plans to try to improve the dreadful situation? |
| --- | --- |

2.

any other plans to try to improve the dreadful situation?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 2003)

(31 July 2003)

The Commission and Member States have repeatedly called for the immediate release of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and the arrested National League for Democracy (NLD) officials and supporters, the reopening of NLD offices throughout the country as well as the reopening of all universities in Burma/Myanmar.

On 16 June 2003 the EU also decided to implement without delay the strengthened sanctions, specifically targeted on the military leaders and their supporters, originally envisaged to enter into force on or before 29 October 2003 as agreed in the Common Position on Burma/Myanmar (2003/297/CFSP) of 28 April 2003 (1).

1

In addition, the EU has intensified discussions on the situation in Burma with its dialogue partners in Asia in order to encourage them to use their influence on the Burmese Government to release Aung San Suu Kyi and support progress on the issues of good governance, and economic reform. On 17 June 2003, the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) has launched an unprecedented call to Burma for ‘a peaceful transition to democracy’.

The Commission will continue to liase with all EU dialogue partners in order to ensure that the increased international pressure on the Burmese Government is maintained until the Burmese government releases Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and all her supporters and undertakes some firm steps towards national reconciliation and a return to democracy.

---

(1)  OJ L 106, 29.4.2003.

1

---
IN RE JO.A.P.

No. COA08-816.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed November 18, 2008.

Certification Date December 8, 2008.

Appeal from Brunswick (07J40, 07J41, 07J42).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

SEPT 16, 2008

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

 Honorable Donald M. Middlebrooks, United States District Judge for the Southern *

District of Florida, sitting by designation.

 [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

_____________________________

No. 07-15426

___________________________

D.C. Docket No. 07-01446-CV-CAP-1

TANYA SPICER, individually

and on behalf of all similarly

situated individuals,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

THE RYLAND GROUP, INC.

D.b.a. Ryland Homes,

RYLAND MORTGAGE CO.,

Defendants-Appellees.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

___________________________

(September 16, 2008)

Before WILSON and PRYOR, Circuit Judges, and MIDDLEBROOKS, District *

Judge.
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant, Tanya Spicer, on behalf of herself and a putative nationwide

class of individuals, appeals the district court’s order, granting a motion to dismiss

in favor of Appellees, Ryland Group, Inc., that was based on the district court’s

determination that defendants’ offering a discount on settlement services,

conditioned upon the use of an affiliated business arrangement in this case was not

a violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C. §§2607(a) and

(b). See Spicer v. Ryland Group. Inc., 523 F.Supp. 1356 (N.D. Ga. 2007). We have

considered the briefs, the relevant parts of the record, and the well-reasoned

opinion by the district court and conclude that the district court did not err, and

properly granted Defendant-Appellees’ motion to dismiss against PlaintiffAppellant.

AFFIRMED.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

755 

CA 13-00007 

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CENTRA, CARNI, WHALEN, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ. 

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF MANUEL MOSLEY, 

PETITIONER-APPELLANT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

MALCOLM R. CULLY, SUPERINTENDENT, COLLINS 

CORRECTIONAL FACILITY AND BRIAN FISCHER, 

COMMISSIONER, NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION, 

RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS. 

 

MANUEL MOSLEY, PETITIONER-APPELLANT PRO SE. 

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (MARCUS J. MASTRACCO OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS. 

 

Appeal from a judgment (denominated order) of the Supreme Court,

Erie County (Penny M. Wolfgang, J.), entered November 7, 2012 in a

CPLR article 78 proceeding. The judgment granted the motion of

respondents to dismiss the petition. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding

seeking to annul the determination, following a tier II disciplinary

hearing, that he violated an inmate rule. Supreme Court properly

granted respondents’ motion to dismiss the petition. The record

establishes that the proceeding was untimely inasmuch as it was

commenced more than four months after the final administrative

determination (see CPLR 217 [1]; Matter of Jackson v Fischer, 78 AD3d

1335, 1335, lv denied 16 NY3d 705). Petitioner contends that the

proceeding was timely insofar as it challenged the denial of his

grievance related to the inmate rule violation, and that the court

therefore erred in failing to rule on the merits of that challenge. 

That contention lacks merit. Even assuming, arguendo, that the

proceeding was timely with respect to the denial of petitioner’s

grievance, we conclude that the allegations of the petition “were not

‘sufficiently particular to give the court and parties notice’ ” that

petitioner was also challenging the denial of his grievance, and thus

the court had no reason to consider that purported challenge (Matter

of Abreu v Hogan, 72 AD3d 1143, 1143, appeal dismissed 15 NY3d 836, 
-2- 755 

CA 13-00007 

quoting CPLR 3013). 

Entered: June 20, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 979/2014Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 979/2014 of 16 September 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 979/2014                     

# of 16 September 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, 16 September 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.
On petition for review filed July 16, 1997,

petition for review allowed; decision of Court of Appeals vacated and case remanded to Court of Appeals with instructions January 27, 2000

#### JOHN KENNETH BOCKERICH, *Petitioner on Review, v.*BOARD OF PAROLE AND POST-PRISON SUPERVISION, *Respondent on Review.*

(CA A93373; SC S44369)

997 P2d 190

Hari Nam S. Khalsa, Deputy Public Defender, Salem, filed the petition for petitioner on review. With him on the petition was Sally L. Avera, Public Defender.

No appearance *contra.*

Before Carson, Chief Justice, Gillette, Van Hoomissen, Durham, and Leeson, Justices.**

**

 Padeley, J., retired January 31, 1998, and did not participate in this decision; Graber, J., resigned March 31,1998, and did not participate in this decision; Kulongoski and Riggs, JJ., did not participate in the consideration or decision of the case.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The petition for review is allowed. The decision of the Court of Appeals is vacated. The case is remanded to the Court of Appeals with instructions to dismiss the petition for judicial review. *See Quintero v. Board of Parole,*329 Or 319, 986 P2d 575 (1999).
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 23 - 0622 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, vs. KEITH CHARLES HARRISON,

Defendant and Appellant .

**G RANT**  Pursuant to authority granted under Mont. R. App. P. 26(1), the Appellant is given an extension of time until January 26 , 2024, to prepare, file, and serve the Appellant’s opening brief.

Electronically signed by: Bowen Greenwood Clerk of the Supreme Court December 21 2023

12/21/2023
Case Number: DA 23-0622
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3721 

To reauthorize the America’s Agricultural Heritage Partnership. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 12, 2013 

Mr. LATHAM introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To reauthorize the America’s Agricultural Heritage 

Partnership. 

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 ‘‘America’s Agricultural 

5 Heritage Partnership Reauthorization Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF THE AMERICA’S AGRICUL7 TURAL HERITAGE PARTNERSHIP. 

8 Section 707 of division II of the Omnibus Parks and 

9 Public Lands Management Act of 1996 (16 U.S.C. 461 

maindgalligan on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

•HR 3721 IH

1 note; Public Law 104–333) is amended by striking ‘‘Sep2 tember 30, 2013’’ and inserting ‘‘September 30, 2023’’. 

Æ 

maindgalligan on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-29-2000
<CASH>                                           1,790
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      365
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,155
<PP&E>                                           1,253
<DEPRECIATION>                                     762
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   2,809
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,367
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            52
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,368
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     2,809
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 8,326
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    8,070
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    256
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                256
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       154
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .03


</TABLE>
# C_2008285EN.01000801.xml

| 8.11.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 285/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 285/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 11 September 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-141/07) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Measures having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction - Protection of public health - Justification - Pharmacies - Supply of medicinal products directly to hospitals - Proximity to the hospital concerned)

(2008/C 285/11)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: B. Schima, acting as Agent)

Applicant:

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: M. Lumma and C. Schulze-Bahr, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 28 EC and 30 EC — National rules stipulating requirements to be met by pharmacies in order to be permitted to supply pharmaceutical products directly to hospitals and capable of being met in practice only by pharmacies located in the vicinity of the hospital concerned

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 117, 26.5.2007.

1

---
<PAGE>   1
                                                                     EXHIBIT 23


INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements on Form
S-3 (Nos. 333-3760 and 333-2007) and Form S-8 (Nos. 33-00074, 33-00076,
333-16741 and 333-15755) of FPA Medical Management, Inc. of our report dated
March 21, 1997, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of FPA Medical
Management, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 1996.


/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
San Diego, California
April 25, 1997
* This matter is being decided by a quorum. 28 U.S.C. §

46(d).

** Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-40969 Conference Calendar

KENNETH D. FORD, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus JAMES A SHAW, JR., ET AL., Defendants, STEVEN MOORE, Sergeant; ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 6:94-CV-699

- - - - - - - - - - February 9, 1999 Before BARKSDALE and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. *
PER CURIAM: ** Kenneth D. Ford, Texas state prisoner #588298, appeals from a judgment for the defendants following a jury trial on his civil rights complaint. Ford argues that certain evidence was improperly admitted before the jury and that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury’s verdict.No. 96-40969 -2- Ford twice asked this court for a transcript without stating specific factual arguments supporting the issues he was presenting and the specific reasons why a transcript was necessary for proper disposition of those issues. A judge of this court therefore denied his requests. Because Ford has thus failed in his responsibility to provide this court with a transcript, his appeal is DISMISSED. See Richardson v. Henry , 902 F.2d 414, 416 (5th Cir. 1990).
DISMISSED.
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 10.26

(QUINTILES TRANSNATIONAL CORP. LOGO)

         Quintiles Transnational Corp.
         Post Office Box 13979
         Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-3979
         918 998 2000 / Fax 919 998 9113
         http://www.quintiles.com


February 22, 2005

Robert A. Ingram
Vice Chairman, Pharmaceuticals
GlaxoSmithKline
Five Moore Drive
RTP, NC 27709

Re: Purchase of Pharma Shares

Dear Bob,

On February 3, 2005 you were offered the opportunity to purchase shares of
common stock of Pharma Services Holding, Inc. for $0.2438 per share. On
February 8, you accepted the offer, purchased the shares and filed an 83(b)
election. In connection with the potential tax liability to you resulting from
your election, Quintiles will pay to you the amount of $79,172.24. You remain
responsible for any personal tax liability whether or not this additional
payment to you fully addresses your tax liability.

We recommend that you seek advice from your personal tax advisor regarding the
payment.

If you have any questions, please contact me at 919-998-2018.

Sincerely,

/s/Nicky Rousseau

Nicky Rousseau
V.P., Global Compensation and Benefits
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3765 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3765

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 198 Baker Street in Corning, New York, as the ``Specialist Ryan P. 
                     Jayne Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 12, 2013

 Mr. Reed (for himself, Mr. Bishop of New York, Mr. King of New York, 
    Mr. Israel, Mrs. McCarthy of New York, Mr. Meeks, Ms. Meng, Ms. 
Velazquez, Mr. Jeffries, Ms. Clarke of New York, Mr. Nadler, Mr. Grimm, 
   Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney of New York, Mr. Rangel, Mr. Crowley, Mr. 
 Serrano, Mr. Engel, Mrs. Lowey, Mr. Sean Patrick Maloney of New York, 
Mr. Gibson, Mr. Tonko, Mr. Owens, Mr. Hanna, Mr. Maffei, Ms. Slaughter, 
  Mr. Higgins, and Mr. Collins of New York) introduced the following 
 bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government 
                                 Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 198 Baker Street in Corning, New York, as the ``Specialist Ryan P. 
                     Jayne Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. SPECIALIST RYAN P. JAYNE POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 198 Baker Street in Corning, New York, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Specialist Ryan P. Jayne Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Specialist 
Ryan P. Jayne Post Office Building''.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                             586
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,157
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         300,631
<DEPRECIATION>                                  81,293
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 232,066
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                        168,315
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      42,743
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   232,066
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                67,384
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                38,322
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              12,962
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 16,100
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    16,100
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.08
        

</TABLE>