alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# CE2004088EN.01014801.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/148 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/148

---

(2004/C 88 E/0157)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3478/03

by Baroness Sarah Ludford (ELDR) to the Commission

(24 November 2003)

Subject:   Colombian flower imports and GSP

Subject:

Why is it proposed to ‘graduate’ Colombian Sector V (including cut flower) imports from GSP so they will be denied tariff preference?

Given that the share of Colombian flowers on the EU market declined from 20,15 % in 1997 to 15,41 % in 2001 and that Colombia's competitors Israel and Kenya will not be graduated, how can this be justified?

Since the reasons for the GSP ‘drugs’ regime unfortunately still persist, will not an EU withdrawal of tariff preference for flowers force more Colombians back into economic reliance on the drugs trade?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(20 January 2004)

(20 January 2004)

At the end of 2002, the Commission intended to graduate certain sectors for beneficiary countries according to Article 12 of the Council Regulation No 2501/2001 on a scheme for generalised tariff preferences (GSP). This provision requires the Commission to decide on an adjustment on the GSP products coverage on a yearly basis. The objective is to enhance the efficiency and fairness of the scheme, by focussing its benefits on those countries and sectors which need them most. Nevertheless, this decision is not of a political nature, and is solely based on economic criteria. Prior to its decision, the Commission has to be backed by the Member States (qualified majority) according to the Union procedures (Comitology).

The GSP is incentive oriented. In particular, it urges the beneficiaries to diversify economically as a means to development. If a beneficiary country relies too much on one sector in its exports, this can be detrimental for its development, and allows for the graduation. Accordingly, in the case of Colombia, this is not the Union's market share that has been the criterion for the graduation, but the too important share of a sector in Colombia's exports.

Nevertheless, to take into account the specific difficulties that might arise, the re-introduction of customs duties will exceptionally be progressive, in two steps (1 November 2003, 1 May 2004), in order not to disturb trade.

Furthermore, the Council adopted, in December 2003, an amendment to the GSP Regulation whereby beneficiary countries accounting for less than one percent of the GSP imports would no longer be in a position to be graduated. Colombia will be eligible under this new provision as from 2005, and accordingly would not be further graduated for any sectors, and the GSP preference should be reestablished for the sector V as from the 1 January 2005.

Concerning import of flowers from Kenya, it is recalled that this country has free access for cut flowers under the Cotonou Agreement and does not use the GSP scheme.

---
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk March 30, 2011

p0323 

# Order

March 30, 2011

142031

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 142031 COA: 291841 Wayne CC: 06-008116-FC LINCOLN ANDERSON WATKINS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 5, 2010 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is GRANTED. The parties shall include among the issues to be briefed: (1) whether MCL 768.27a conflicts with MRE 404(b) and, if it does, (2) whether the statute prevails over the court rule, see McDougall
v Schanz , 461 Mich 15 (1999), an d Const 1963, art 6, § 1 and § 5; (3) whether the omission of any reference to MRE 403 in MCL 768.27a (as compared to MCL 768.27b(1)), while mandating that evidence of other offenses “is admissible for any purpose for which it is relevant,” would violat e a defendant’s due process right to a fair trial; and (4) whether MCL 768. 27a interferes with the judicial power to ensure that a
criminal defendant receives a fair trial, a power exclusively ve sted in the courts of this state under Const 1963, art 6, § 1.

The Criminal Defense Attorneys of Michigan and the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan are inv ited to file briefs amicus curiae. Other persons or groups
interested in the determinati on of the issues presented in this case may move the Court for permission to file briefs amicus curiae.
Exhibit 13.1



CERTIFICATIONS UNDER SECTION 906



Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of
the undersigned officers of QIAGEN N.V., does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:



The Annual Report for the year ended December 31, 2004 (the Form 20-F) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                      |  |                                                     
|--------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------
|Dated: April 18, 2005 |  | /s/ Peer M. Schatz                                  
|                      |  | Peer M. Schatz                                      
|                      |  | Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer       
|                      | 
|Dated: April 18, 2005 |  | /s/ Roland Sackers                                  
|                      |  | Roland Sackers                                      
|                      |  | Deputy Managing Director and Chief Financial Officer



A signed original 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.
Amendment to Morgan Stanley 401(k) Plan, dated as of July 10, 2008



 EXHIBIT 10.1 
 AMENDMENT TO 
 401(k) PLAN 
 Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated (the “Corporation”) hereby amends the Morgan Stanley 401(k) Plan (the “401(k) Plan”) as
follows: 
 Effective as of the day prior to the closing of the secondary offering that takes Morgan Stanley’s voting interest in MSCI
Inc. and Barra, Inc. below 80%, Appendix B of the 401(k) Plan shall be amended (i) by adding “—the day prior to the Closing Date (as defined below)” at the end of the entries for MSCI Inc. and Barra, Inc. in the list of
Participating Companies contained therein, and (ii) by adding the following new section at the end thereof: 
 “Cessation of Participation of MSCI/Barra. Effective on the day prior to the closing of the secondary offering that takes Morgan Stanley’s voting interest in MSCI Inc. and Barra, Inc. below 80% (the “Closing
Date”), (i) MSCI Inc. and Barra, Inc. (collectively “MSCI/Barra”) shall cease to be a Participating Company in the Plan; (ii) employees of MSCI/Barra shall cease to actively participate in the Plan; and (iii) current
employees of MSCI/Barra on the day prior to the Closing Date shall become fully vested in all amounts allocated to their Accounts. An employee of MSCI/Barra who would have been eligible to receive a Retirement Contribution for 2008 pursuant to
Section 6(e) of the Plan but for MSCI/Barra’s cessation of participation on the day prior to the Closing Date shall receive such a contribution for the year based on his or her Years of Service and Retirement Contribution Earnings, if any,
to the day prior to the Closing Date.” 
  
 *  
*   *   *   *   *   *   *   * 
  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Corporation has caused this Amendment to be executed on its behalf as of this 10th day of July, 2008. 
  

			
	MORGAN STANLEY & CO.
INCORPORATED
		
	By:	 	/S/ KAREN JAMESLEY
	Title: Global Head of Human Resources
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                         1,094,408
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                          771,107
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                            771,107
<EQUITIES>                                     134,320
<MORTGAGE>                                       6,850
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                               2,234,885
<CASH>                                          23,734
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                             295,833
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                         449,560
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,944,582
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                325,959
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                          1,487,424
<POLICY-OTHER>                                 579,680
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                            7,146
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                344,705
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           99,160
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        43,083
<OTHER-SE>                                     670,776
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,944,582
<PREMIUMS>                                     374,250
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                             38,087
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                               6,191
<OTHER-INCOME>                                   7,717
<BENEFITS>                                     127,661
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                          0
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                                 0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (7,978)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (11,753)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,775
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,775
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0
        

</TABLE>
#### McNaughton's Executors *v.*Moseley.

The. jury returned to give their verdict, and said the..» found for the *Defendant*— Mr. *Hay*for the Plaintiff, *380prayed before the verdict was entered, that the Plaintiff might be called and nonsuited. *Mr. Moore,*for the D >- fendant, said it could not be done after the jury had delivered their verdicts though before it was recoided.

Haywood, Justice,

I am very clear it may be done at any tinto before the verdict is recorded. *Mr. Moore,*I am as clear it cannot be done, and I pray time to argue it and produce authorities.

Per *curiam*

Let tiro verdict be recorded, subject to be set aside if the Defendant’s counsel do not shew that a. nonsuit cannot be taken after the jury have said for whom they find. The verdict was entered, and afterwards anew trial was moved for and granted for another cause.

Note. — The Plaintiff is demandahle when a verdict is to bo given. *Co. Litt*139, *a.*3 Bl. *Com.*376, In which latter book it is said, when the. jury i etui« buc-k to the bar, and betón they deliver their verdict, the Plaintiff in person, or by attorney, is bound to appear to answer ■the amercement, and if he does not appear no verdict can be given. 3 *Mo.*208. After a general v-rdict the court will not suffer the Plain, tiff to discontinue his action. 2 *H*4 c. 7, provides that Plaintiff shall not be nonsuited after a verdict, though he might at the common law, if he did not like his damages. 2 *H. P. C.*184, says it is the opinion of some books, that the X’laintiff may be nonsuited at the common law at any day of continuance before judgment, though that is altered by 2 *H.*4, *ideo guare*— What is the meaning of the words “after verdict given ?” Whether it can be said to be given, before it is received by tlie court and entered of record, previous to which stage tile jury may retract or alter it; neither is'it complete till the record of it be read over to them, and assented to as recorded.
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 11




                                  LEAPNET, INC.




              STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF PER-SHARE EARNINGS

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                         Twelve Months Ended January 31,         Three Months Ended January 31,
                                         -------------------------------         ------------------------------
                                              2000               1999               2000                1999
                                              ----               ----               ----                ----
<S>                                           <C>              <C>                <C>               <C>
Net income (loss)                               ($311,150)     ($18,322,753)      ($1,276,005)      ($1,817,027)

Weighted average number of common
   shares outstanding during period            14,255,694        13,687,943        14,589,885        13,813,172

Net shares issuable upon exercise
of                                                     -                 -                  -                 -
    dilutive outstanding stock options
                                           --------------    --------------     -------------    --------------

Shares used in Diluted per share
    calculation                                14,255,694        13,687,943        14,589,885        13,813,172

Basic earnings per common share                    ($0.02)           ($1.34)           ($0.09)           ($0.13)
Diluted earnings per common share                  ($0.02)           ($1.34)           ($0.09)           ($0.13)
</TABLE>
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 of Science Dynamics Corporation
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Alan C. Bashforth, Chief Executive Officer, President and
Acting Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
section 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 and 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.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to Science Dynamics Corporation and will be retained by Science
Dynamics Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.


Dated: May 17, 2004



                             /s/ Alan C. Bashforth
                             -------------------------
                             Name: Alan C. Bashforth
                             Title: Chief Executive Officer and
                             Acting Chief Financial Officer
*After examining appellant’s brief and the appellate record, this panel has

determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the

determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2) and 10th Cir. R.

34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This

order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of

the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the

citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be

cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

JAN 30 2003

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

FELICIO OSTUNI,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

SERGEANT FOSTER; OFFICER

WILLIAMS; DET. DAVID OLLILA;

DET. DAVID LUCERO; CHIEF

GERALD WHITMAN; DEPUTY

MAYOR STEPHANIE FOOTE; and

MAYOR WELLINGTON WEBB,

Defendants - Appellees.

No. 02-1239

D.C. No. 02-Z-492

(D. Colorado)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before EBEL, LUCERO and HARTZ, Circuit Judges.

Plaintiff Felicio Ostuni (“Plaintiff”) is currently incarcerated at the

Sterling, Colorado, Correctional Facility. On March 13, 2002, he filed this pro se
- 2 -

civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged, inter alia, that

members of the Denver Police Department and other city officials violated his

Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights during an investigation that resulted in

his conviction and current incarceration. 

In an Order and Judgment filed May 13, 2002, the district court dismissed

Plaintiff’s complaint and entered judgment in favor of all Defendants. To the

extent that Plaintiff was attempting to use his § 1983 action to invalidate the

criminal conviction for which he was currently incarcerated, the district court

ruled that such a claim is barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). It

dismissed that claim without prejudice. The district court also dismissed

Plaintiff’s harassment claim against Defendants Foster, Williams, Ollila and

Lucero, finding that claim legally frivolous because of Plaintiff’s failure to “state

a claim that rises to the level of a constitutional deprivation.” (Slip Op. at 2.)

On June 5, 2002, the district court denied Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in

forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and Fed. R. App. P. 24, finding that

Plaintiff’s arguments were frivolous and that his appeal was not taken in good

faith. Plaintiff then filed an ifp motion with this Court.
- 3 -

After a full review of the record, we GRANT Plaintiff’s motion to proceed

in forma pauperis and AFFIRM the dismissal of his complaint for substantially

the reasons stated by the district court in its May 13, 2002, Order and Judgment.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

David M. Ebel

Circuit Judge
ex4-13.htm


    Exhibit 4.13

      


      CERTIFICATE
OF TRUST

      


      OF

      


      FIRST
FINANCIAL CAPITAL TRUST III

      


      


      


      THIS
CERTIFICATE OF TRUST OF FIRST FINANCIAL CAPITAL TRUST III (the “Trust”) is being
duly executed and filed by the undersigned on behalf of the Trust to form a
statutory trust under the Delaware Statutory Trust Act (12 Del. C. §§3801 et seq.) (the
“Act”).

      


      


      
        	
                 
      

              	
                1.

              	
                Name.  The
      name of the statutory trust being formed is First Financial Capital Trust
      III.

              


      

      


      
        	
                 
      

              	
                2.

              	
                Trustee.  The
      name and business address of the trustee of the Trust with its principal
      place of business in the State of Delaware are as
  follows:

              


      

      


      Wilmington Trust Company

      1100 North Market Street

      Wilmington, DE 19890-1605

      ATTN: Corporate Trust
Services

      


      


      IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate of Trust in
accordance with Section 3811(a) of the Act.

      


      


      WILMINGTON TRUST COMPANY,

      not in
its individual capacity but solely as Delaware Trustee of the Trust

      


      


      


      By:      /s/ Erik E.
Overcash                        

      Name: Erik E. Overcash

      Title: Assistant Vice
President
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23




                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


     As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation
by reference of our reports dated February 22, 2000, included in the MRV
Communications', Inc. Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1999 into

   (i)    the Registration Statement on Form S-8 of MRV Communications, Inc.
          (File Nos. 33-96458);

   (ii)   the Registration Statement on Form S-8 of MRV Communications, Inc.
          (File Nos. 333-87743);

   (iii)  the Registration Statement on Form S-8 of MRV Communications, Inc.
          (File Nos. 333-87741);

   (iv)   the Registration Statement on Form S-8 of MRV Communications, Inc.
          (File Nos. 333-87739)

   (v)    the Registration Statement on Form S-8 of MRV Communications, Inc.
          (File Nos. 333-87735);

   (vi)   the Registration Statement on Form S-8 of MRV Communications, Inc.
          (File Nos. 333-87733);

   (vii)  the Registration Statement on Form S-8 of MRV Communications, Inc.
          (File Nos. 333-87731);

   (viii) the Registration Statement on Form S-8 of MRV Communications, Inc.
          (File Nos. 333-86163)

   (ix)   the Registration Statement on Form S-8 of MRV Communications, Inc.
          (File Nos. 333-17537); and

   (x)    the Registration Statement on Form S-8 of MRV Communications, Inc.
          (File Nos. 333-64017).



                                            /s/ ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

                                                ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

Los Angeles, California
March 29, 2000