alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# CE2004078EN.01094901.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/949 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/949

---

(2004/C 78 E/1004)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0300/04

by Roberto Bigliardo (UEN) to the Commission

(6 February 2004)

Subject:   Financing for the new Athens airport

Subject:

By decision E (96) 1356 of 23 May 1996 the Commission granted the company AIA SA funding of EUR 250 million to build the new Athens airport at Spata.

The company subsequently (on 14 June 1996) signed a contract for the airport project with Hochtief AG, formerly called Gebr. Helfmann of Essen (Germany), for a sum of EUR 1,8 billion. In its turn this company set up a branch in Athens which is not entered on the register of limited companies. Hochtief has concluded a whole series of contracts with other firms in order to sub-contract the construction work.

Hochtief has a 45 % share in AIA SA, the Greek State 55 %, although Hochtief controls the board of directors with 5 out of 9 directors. The Commission's decision E (96) 1356 named AIA SA as the entity responsible for carrying out the project. According to Article 12.2.6. of Greek Law No 2338/95, AIA SA cannot be considered as a body governed by public law, and Article 10 of Regulation No 1164/94 (1) states that funding may be granted only to bodies governed by public law.

1

Spat airport has also set extremely high airport taxes, because of its dominant position in air traffic to and from Greece. This prompted a number of passengers to lodge complaints with the Commission in July 2002.

| 1. | Can the Commission say how it justifies granting the funding directly to a limited company rather than to a body governed by public law. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Can the Commission say how it justifies granting the funding directly to a limited company rather than to a body governed by public law.

| 2. | Can it say why it has not yet responded to the complaints concerning the high airport taxes charged by Spata airport. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Can it say why it has not yet responded to the complaints concerning the high airport taxes charged by Spata airport.

| 3. | Can it say which of the two companies — Hochtief AG or Hellas SA — issued the invoice for the payment of EUR 1,8 billion to the company AIA, which was subsequently submitted to the Commission to justify the funding of EUR 250 million? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Can it say which of the two companies — Hochtief AG or Hellas SA — issued the invoice for the payment of EUR 1,8 billion to the company AIA, which was subsequently submitted to the Commission to justify the funding of EUR 250 million?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(3 March 2004)

(3 March 2004)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its findings as soon as possible.

---

(1)  OJ L 130, 25.5.1994, p. 1.

1

---
EXHIBIT 32.1





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT TO
 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I, David Lieberman,  Chief  Executive  Officer  ofWorld Health Energy Holdings, Inc. (the "Company"),  hereby  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section  1350,  as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:
 
 (1) The Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2010, 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
 
 (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 /s/David LiebermanDavid LiebermanChief Executive Officer


Date: November15, 2010





________________
 
 This  certification  accompanies  the  Report  pursuant  to  Section  906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and  shall not be deemed  filed by the  Company  for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
 
 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 the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT 11.1

                                   MAXIS, INC.

                 STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                      (In thousands, except per share data)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                            Three Months Ended      Nine Months Ended
                                                                December 31,           December 31,
                                                           --------------------     -----------------
                                                               1996       1995       1996        1995

<S>                                                        <C>        <C>        <C>         <C>     
Net income (loss)                                          $  2,025   $  3,541   $ (1,887)   $  6,395
Computations of weighted average common and
common equivalent shares outstanding:
     Weighted average common shares outstanding              11,232     10,373     11,162       7,785
     Common equivalent shares from stock options issued
        during the twelve-month period prior to the Com-
        pany's initial public                                    --        993         --         993
Common equivalent shares attributable to:
     Redeemable preferred stock (if-converted method)            --         --         --       2,094
     Stock options (treasury stock method) 1                     --         89         --          46
                                                           --------   --------   --------    --------
Shares used in computing net income (loss) per share         11,232     11,455     11,162      10,918
                                                           ========   ========   ========    ========
Net income (loss) per share                                $    .18   $    .31   $   (.17)   $    .59
                                                           ========   ========   ========    ========

<FN>

--------
      1 All stock options were  antidilutive for the three and nine months ended
      December  31,  1996 and  therefore  not  included  in the  computation  of
      earnings per share.
</FN>
</TABLE>

                                    Page 16
EXHIBIT 31.2


CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO


SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I, David Lieberman, certify that:
 
 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of World Health Energy Holdings, 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 we 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 quarterly 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  that  has  materially  affected,  or is  reasonably  likely  to materially affect, the registrant's  internal control over financial  reporting; and
 5. 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 the  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.


Date: November 12, 2010
 
 /s/David Lieberman


David Lieberman
 Chief Accounting Officer
#### SUPERIOR OIL CO. et al. v. BLAIN.

No. 10824.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

May 29, 1940.

*429Boone, Henderson, Boone & Davis, of Corpus Christi, for appellants.

Kemp, Lewright, Dyer, Wilson, & Sor-rell, of Corpus Christi, for appellee.

SMITH, Chief Justice.

The parties have filed their joint motion, reciting that all matters involved have been adjusted and the obligations of the parties discharged, and praying that in pursuance of that adjustment the judgment of the trial court be reversed and judgment here rendered in favor of appellants, but at their cost.

Accordingly, and only by reason of the recitations in said *motion,*it is ordered that the judgment of the trial court be reversed and that judgment be here rendered that appellee take nothing by reason of his suit, and that appellants go hence, at their cost.

Reversed and rendered.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1433 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a credit against 

tax for volunteer firefighters. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 11, 2009 

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

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a 

credit against tax for volunteer firefighters. 

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 ‘‘Volunteer Firefighter 

5 Recruitment and Retention Act of 2009’’. 

6 SEC. 2. CREDIT FOR VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subpart A of part IV of sub8 chapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 

9 1986 (relating to nonrefundable personal credits) is 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

•HR 1433 IH

1 amended by inserting after section 25D the following new 

2 section: 

3 ‘‘SEC. 25E. CREDIT FOR VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS. 

4 ‘‘(a) ALLOWANCE OF CREDIT.—In the case of a vol5 unteer firefighter, there shall be allowed as a credit 

6 against the tax imposed by this chapter the credit amount 

7 determined under subsection (b). 

8 ‘‘(b) CREDIT AMOUNT.—With respect to a taxable 

9 year, the credit amount determined under this subsection 

10 is— 

11 ‘‘(1) in the case of a volunteer firefighter who 

12 has completed 3 or more years of service as a volun13 teer firefighter during the taxable year, $1,000, and 

14 ‘‘(2) in the case of a volunteer firefighter who 

15 has completed 8 or more years of service as a volun16 teer firefighter during the taxable year, $1,500. 

17 ‘‘(c) VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTER.—For purposes of 

18 this section, the term ‘volunteer firefighter’ means an indi19 vidual who is a member in good standing of a qualified 

20 volunteer emergency response organization (as defined in 

21 section 139B).’’. 

22 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The table of sec23 tions for subpart A of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 

24 1 of such Code is amended by inserting after the item 

25 relating to section 25D the following new item: 

‘‘Sec. 25E. Credit for volunteer firefighters.’’. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
3 

•HR 1433 IH

1 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

2 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

3 December 31, 2008. 

Æ 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION SUMMARY

1. Style of case: Kim Pickrell, et al. v. Collin County, Texas, et al.

2. Civil action number: 3:22-cv-02425-D

3. Nature of the suit: employment discrimination

4. Method of ADR used: mediation

5. Date ADR session was held: February 28, 2023

6. Outcome of ADR (Select one):

 Parties did not use my services  Settled, in part, as a result of ADR

X Settled as a result of ADR*  Parties were unable to reach a settlement.

 

7. What was your TOTAL fee: $8,850.00

8. Duration of ADR: ten (10) hours (i.e., one day, two hours)

9. Please list persons in attendance (including party association, defendant, plaintiff).

Please provide the names, address and telephone number of counsel on the reverse of this 

form.

Please see attached 

10. Provider information:

Hon. Jeff Kaplan (Ret.) 

8401 North Central Expressway Suite 610

Dallas, Texas 75225

Phone: (214) 744-5267

/s/ Jeff Kaplan March 9, 2023

Signature

 

* The parties have reached an agreement in principle and are working with the mediator to finalize the settlement. A 

supplemental ADR summary will be filed by on or before March 31, 2023.

Case 3:22-cv-02425-D Document 27 Filed 03/09/23 Page 1 of 3 PageID 180
Alternative Dispute Resolution Summary

Continued

Please provide the names, addresses and telephone numbers of counsel:

Jeffrey B. Simon

Charles E. Soechting, Jr.

JoDee Neil

Simon Greenstone Panatier, P.C.

1201 Elm Street, Suite 3400

Dallas, Texas 75270

Phone: (214) 276-7680

Counsel for Plaintiffs

Charles J. Crawford

Abernathy Roeder Boyd & Hullett, P.C.

1700 Redbud Boulevard, Suite 300

McKinney, Texas 75069

Phone: (214) 544-4000

Counsel for Collin County Defendants

Jennifer Parker Ainsworth

Wilson, Robertson & Cornelius, P.C.

909 ESE Loop 323, Suite 400

Tyler, Texas 75701

Phone: (903) 509-5000

Counsel for Defendant Greg Willis

R. Rogge Dunn

Rogge Dunn Group

500 North Akard Street, Suite 1900

Dallas, Texas 75201

Phone: (214) 888-5000

Counsel for Defendant Greg Willis

Robert S. Davis

Flowers Davis, P.L.L.C.

1021 ESE Loop 323, Suite 200

Tyler, Texas 75701

Phone: (903) 534-8063

Counsel for Defendant Bill Wirskye

Kim Pickrell, with Plaintiffs

Fallon LaFleur, with Plaintiffs

Vykim Le, with Plaintiffs

Keith Henslee, with Plaintiffs

Jane Doe 1, with Plaintiffs

Jane Doe 2, with Plaintiffs

Case 3:22-cv-02425-D Document 27 Filed 03/09/23 Page 2 of 3 PageID 181
Chris Hill, with Defendants

Bill Bilyeu, with Defendants

Duncan Webb, with Defendants

Jessica Affeld, with Defendants

Greg Willis, with Defendants

Bill Wirskye, with Defendants

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 9

th day of March 2023, I electronically submitted the foregoing 

document with the clerk of the court for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. 

/s/ Judy Stephenson

Case Manager

Case 3:22-cv-02425-D Document 27 Filed 03/09/23 Page 3 of 3 PageID 182
# Официален вестник C 39A/7 фе

| | ISSN 1977-0855 |
| --- | --- |
| Официален вестник
  на Европейския съюз | C 39A |
| | |
| Издание на български език | Информация и известия | Година 607 февруари 2017 г. |

ISSN 1977-0855

Официален вестник

на Европейския съюз

C 39A

Издание на български език

Информация и известия

Година 607 февруари 2017 г.

---

| Известие No | Съдържание | Страница |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Становища |
| | АДМИНИСТРАТИВНИ ПРОЦЕДУРИ |
| | Европейска комисия |
| 2017/C 39 A/01 | Служба на Общността за сортовете растения — Покана за заявяване на интерес за назначаване на председател на Апелативния съвет (COM/2017/20018) | 1 |

Известие No

Съдържание

Страница

V   Становища

АДМИНИСТРАТИВНИ ПРОЦЕДУРИ

Европейска комисия

2017/C 39 A/01

Служба на Общността за сортовете растения — Покана за заявяване на интерес за назначаване на председател на Апелативния съвет (COM/2017/20018)

1

---

| BG | |
| --- | --- |

BG

---

V Становища

АДМИНИСТРАТИВНИ ПРОЦЕДУРИ

Европейска комисия

| 7.2.2017 | BG | Официален вестник на Европейския съюз | CA 39/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.2.2017

BG

Официален вестник на Европейския съюз

CA 39/1

---

СЛУЖБА НА ОБЩНОСТТА ЗА СОРТОВЕТЕ РАСТЕНИЯ

Покана за заявяване на интерес за назначаване на председател на Апелативния съвет

(COM/2017/20018)

(2017/C 039 A/01)

Службата на Общността за сортовете растения търси да назначи председател на своя Апелативен съвет.

Кандидатите трябва да са граждани на една от държавите — членки на Европейския съюз.

Председателят, избран от предложен от Комисията списък с кандидати, се назначава от Съвета след получаване на становището на Административния съвет на Службата. Информация относно заплащането може да бъде получена от секретариата на Апелативния съвет (Community Plant Variety Office, 3, boulevard Maréchal-Foch, BP 10121, F-49101 Angers Cedex 02). Службата на Общността за сортовете растения и Комисията прилагат политика на равни възможности.

Пълният текст на поканата за заявяване на интерес и връзката към формуляра за кандидатстване онлайн са публикувани на следния адрес: https://ec.europa.eu/dgs/human-resources/seniormanagementvacancies/

Срокът за получаване на кандидатурите е 8 март 2017 г. (за подробности вж. указанията за кандидатстване).

---
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-18-00241-CR

Donnell Parker

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

From the 371st District Court

of Tarrant County (1519847D)

July 19, 2018

Per Curiam 

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

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

the appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

PER CURIAM
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ralph Lemonious, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kramer, J.), rendered October 28, 1986, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s conviction for criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree arose out of an undercover narcotics operation conducted by the police on November 19, 1985. An undercover officer purchased a tinfoil packet of cocaine through a slot in a steel door located on the third floor of a semi-abandoned apartment building in Brooklyn. A few minutes later a backup team arrived and battered down the door. Upon entering the apartment, the police found the defendant standing between the kitchen and living room within two feet of a rifle and handgun which were lying on the floor. The police also found several tinfoil packets containing cocaine, paraphernalia relating to drug selling, and a pile of loose cocaine, all of which were in plain view.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt *(see also, People v Darrell,*161 AD2d 726; *People v Davis,*144 AD2d 689; *People v Ogelsby,*128 AD2d 556). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental *pro se*brief, are either unpreserved *637for appellate review *(see,*CPL 470.05) or any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt *(see, People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230).

Finally, we perceive no basis on which to disturb the sentence imposed. Bracken, J. P., Harwood, O’Brien and Ritter, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1998.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                            3109
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    29789
<ALLOWANCES>                                       579
<INVENTORY>                                      28584
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 63436
<PP&E>                                           38915
<DEPRECIATION>                                   26608
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   89254
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            33881
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            76
<OTHER-SE>                                       54629
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     89254
<SALES>                                          27790
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 29295
<CGS>                                            13887
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    13887
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 15721
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  71
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (313)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       (94)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (219)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (219)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.03)
        

</TABLE>