alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# CE2004078EN.01087001.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/870 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/870

---

(2004/C 78 E/0923)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3879/03

by Olle Schmidt (ELDR) to the Commission

(16 December 2003)

Subject:   Rules governing eel fishing

Subject:

The migration of eels in Europe has fallen by between 90 and 95 % since the 1950s. Accordingly the Commission's proposal (1) on measures to save the eel is of great importance.

1

Naturally the long-term management of the eel population must come first. However, the burden of saving the eels must be shared equally among all the areas over which the species is distributed in Europe. It is not reasonable to have new rules imposing a total ban on eel fishing in Northern Europe while at the same Southern Europe continues to fish for elvers on a large scale for consumption or breeding.

Fishing should be reduced, but this reduction should be spread over the whole of Europe. However, the Commission is side-stepping the most important measure to save the eel, namely the transplantation of the eel fry which the French, Spaniards and Portuguese are currently catching in large numbers for consumption or eel farming.

In the south of Sweden there is a small-scale eel fishery which is of great importance for local traditions. That being so, what can the Commission do to adapt the new rules on eel fishing so that the responsibility and burden is shared by the whole of Europe?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(26 January 2004)

(26 January 2004)

The Commission agrees that eel fisheries should be managed in an equitable way across Europe, for the benefit of all parties concerned, and with contributions to conservation to be made in a fair and balanced manner.

Sustainable eel stocks can best be maintained by ensuring that sufficient glass eel recruit from the estuaries to populate the river basins, sufficient yellow eel survive the riverine fisheries, and finally that sufficient silver eel survive the downstream migrations to join the stock of spawning fish. Either environmental measures or fisheries-related measures (or both), should be used, and even then only in a consistent and fair way. Member States should retain responsibility for implementing measures at a local level to reach these objectives. In the longer term, the Commission is committed to proposing a Community-wide system for eel management that is equitable in respect of management action taken in different areas and in different life stages.

However, given the immediate scientific concerns about the state of the eel stock, short-term and emergency measures are also needed. The measures that will have the largest immediate contribution to the spawning stock of adult eel are to ensure the highest possible survival of silver eel during their downstream migration. The Commission will therefore focus on this topic as a matter of urgency when developing its proposals, and will consider ways to reduce the mortality of silver eel due to both fishing and to environmental modifications.

---

(1)  COM(2003)573.

1

---
EXHIBIT 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Paul Burgess, Chief Executive Officer of Science Dynamics Corporation,
certify that:

1.    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Science
Dynamics Corporation for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2006;

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 small business
issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.    The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) 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 small
business issuer 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 small business issuer is made
known to us by others, particularly during the period in which this report is
being prepared;

      (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure
controls 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 small business issuer's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small
business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth
fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or
is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting; and

5.    The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit
committee of the small business issuer'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 small business issuer'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 small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting.

August 16, 2006


/s/ Paul Burgess
-----------------------
Paul Burgess
Chief Executive Officer
# CE2004088EN.01047801.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/478 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/478

---

(2004/C 88 E/0490)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3967/03

by Gian Gobbo (NI) to the Commission

(5 January 2004)

Subject:   Compensation for expropriated property of Istrian refugees in Croatia

Subject:

In view of the impending decision by the Council to open negotiations with Croatia, does the Commission not believe it desirable and necessary to raise the sensitive issue of the expropriations suffered by Italian citizens and other Europeans who were obliged after the Second World War, by the new Yugoslavian authorities, to abandon their property and land?

Does the Commission not believe that the legislation invoked by the Croatian authorities to justify their refusal to return this property to the Istrian refugees is contrary to the principles of both the European Union and the European Convention on Human Rights?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(6 February 2004)

(6 February 2004)

The issue of the expropriations after the Second World War is an open bilateral issue between the countries concerned and the Commission has no legal competence on the matter.

However, the Commission, on the basis of the principle of good neighbourly relations, has on several occasions recommended Croatia to find an acceptable solution to the problem through a dialogue with the parties concerned. The problem has been mentioned in the last Stabilisation and Association Report on Croatia of April 2003, and in the regular meetings between the Commission and Croatian Government.

---
### Regular Totals (Holders)

Airport = LGA Holder = 0001(Exclude) Status Date = 07/01/2009 (Current & Future) 10/19/2009 10:58:36



### Query Parameters:

### 10/19/2009 10:58:36

Carrier 

### Regular Totals (Holders) Excludes FAA Held Slots Held less than 5 days are Excluded PF7 Status Date = 07/01/2009 (Current & Future)
LGA
152 AAL AMERICAN AIRLINES 43 ACA AIR CANADA 9 CJC COLGAN AIRWAYS 34 COA CONTINENTAL AIRLINES 8 COM COMAIR AIRLINES 222 DAL DELTA AIR LINES 84 EGF AMR EAGLE HOLDING COPR. (FORMERLY 5 FFT FRONTIER AIRLINES 15 JBU JETBLUE AIRWAYS CORP. 18 MEP MIDWEST AIRLINES (MIDWEST EXPRESS 22 NKS SPIRIT AIRLINES 48 NWA NORTHWEST AIRLINES 9 PDT PIEDMONT AIRLINES, INC. (FORMERLY 15 SWA SOUTHWEST AIRLINES 22 TRS AIRTRAN AIRWAYS (new 3ltr eff 03/22/03) 60 UAL UNITED AIRLINES 381 USA US AIRWAYS

Page 2
Exhibit 23.4

Consent of Richard Brummer

I consent to the inclusion in this annual report on Form 40-F of North American Palladium Ltd., which is being filed with the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission, of references to my name and references to my involvement in the preparation of Technical Report for Lac des Iles Mine, Ontario, Incorporating Prefeasibility Study for Life of Mine Plan (effective
date of March 21, 2014) included in the 2013 Annual Information Form of North American Palladium Ltd., dated March 31, 2014 (the AIF).

I also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (File No. 333-13766) and in the Registration
Statement on Form F-10 (File No. 333-185656) of the references to my name and the above-mentioned information in the AIF.

Dated this
31st day of March, 2014.



|     |  |                                              
|---- |  | ---------------------------------------------
|     | 
|Per: |  | /s/ Richard Brummer, Ph.D., P.Eng.           
|     |  | Richard Brummer, Ph.D., P.Eng.               
|     |  | President and Principal Geomechanics Engineer
|     |  | Itasca Consulting Canada Inc.
<PAGE>

TALK VISUAL CLOSES MERGER WITH VIDEOCALL INTERNATIONAL
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CAMBRIDGE MA--(BUSINESS WIRE)--15 June 1999-- Talk Visual Corporation
(OTC-BB: TVCP news) announced today that at the Special Shareholders' Meeting
held at 10:00 AM EST at the company's world headquarters in Cambridge,
Massachusetts, the shareholders of Talk Visual Corporation voted overwhelmingly
to approve the merger of the company with Videocall International Corporation.

According to company Chairman Michael J. Zwebner, "We are pleased with the
response of the shareholders, and delighted with the end result.   Approximately
75% of the shareholders replied to the proxy and sent in the proxy forms
supplied.  Of the shareholders who replied, 99% voted in favour of the merger."

The company's Chief Financial Officer, C. Harold Snyder, confirmed that "the
merged entity has a balance sheet of approximately $18 million in total assets."

More information on Talk Visual can be found at the company's website on the
Worldwide Web at www.talkvisual.com.   The company's full-color newspaper, the
                 ------------------
"Talk Visual News," is available at the company's website.   The newspaper
contains details and pictures of management and staff, and outlines recent
developments in company locations and business relationships around the world.

Except for historical information contained herein, the statements in this
release (including without limitation, statements indicating that the company
"expects," "estimates," "anticipates," or "believes" and all other statements
concerning future financial results, product offerings or other events that have
not yet occurred) are forward-looking statements that are made pursuant to the
safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995,
Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 27A
of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. Additional information on these and
other factors are included in the company's Form 10-KSB for the Fiscal Year
ended Dec. 31, 1998, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contact: Talk Visual Corporation, Noelle A. Galperin, (617) 679-0300
ngalperin@talkvisual.com
------------------------
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    Exhibit 13.2

                             The Leap Group, Inc.

                            SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


                                       Fiscal Year Ended January 31,
                                --------------------------------------------
                                  1997         1996         1995       1994*
                                --------------------------------------------
<S>                             <C>           <C>         <C>         <C>
Revenues (000's)                $16,088       $8,210       $4,679       $373
Net Income/(Loss) (000's)        $1,306         $700      ($1,065)      ($76)
Earnings (Loss) Per Share         $0.12        $0.07       ($0.11)    ($0.01)


                                              As of  January 31,
                                ---------------------------------------------

                                  1997         1996         1995        1994*
                                ---------------------------------------------
<S>                             <C>           <C>          <C>         <C>
Total Assets (000's)            $39,860       $2,053       $2,538       $355
Long-Term Obligations (000's)      $366         $448         $420         $0
Working Capital (000's)         $34,694        ($973)     ($1,515)     ($145)

</TABLE>


*  For the short period from business inception, September 20, 1993, through
   January 31, 1994.
2005 National Reconnaissance Pioneer 

Recognition Program-Call for Nominations

The National Reconnaissance Office Center for the Study of National Reconnaissance is 

soliciting nominations for the 2005 National Reconnaissance Pioneer Recognition Program. 

Director of the NRO, Mr. Peter B. Teets, plans to recognize and honor individuals who have 

made significant and lasting contributions to the discipline and practice of national 

reconnaissance.

Those selected as pioneers will be publicly honored during the fifth annual Pioneer Recognition 

Ceremony in September 2005, and a medallion will be dedicated for each honoree in the NRO's 

Pioneer Hall.

All individuals, regardless of organizational affiliation (e.g., government, industry, military, 

etc.), are eligible for consideration as National Reconnaissance Pioneers. The Pioneer 

Recognition Program aims to honor individuals who were part of the world-class national 

reconnaissance work force--those who personified the values of integrity, excellence, and 

innovation during the earliest years of the organization.

An information sheet about the pioneer program and a nomination form are attached. Please feel 

free to distribute these materials to those you feel might be interested in offering a nomination. 

Nominations must be received no later than Jan. 31, 2005.

If you have questions about the Pioneer Recognition Program, please contact Ms. Joliet Custer at 

(703) 808-1209.
## IN THE COURT O F CRIMINA L A PPEA LS OF TEXAS NO. WR-63,871-03
EX P ARTE TIMOTH Y RAND AL THOMPSON, Applicant
ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. 0764908-B IN CRIMINAL DIST RICT COURT NO. 2

F ROM TARRA NT COUNTY
Per curiam . O R D E R Pursuant to the provisions of Ar t i cl e 1 1
. 07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedur e, the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habea s corpus. Ex parte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convic t ed o f murder and sentenc ed t o twenty-five year s’ imprisonment. The Second Court of Appea ls aff irmed his conviction. Thompson v. State , No. 02-01-00202- CR (Tex. App.—For t Worth Mar. 21, 2002) (not designated f

or publication). Applicant contends that trial and appellate counsel rende red ineffe ctive assistance
. The trial court a dopted the State’s pr oposed findings of fact and conclusions of law and rec ommended that2

we deny relief

. After we rec eived the ha beas r ecor d, Applicant filed a motion to remand with this Court. He wants his application to be rema nded to the trial court so he can file a supplemental claim. We de cline to r emand his a pplication. Nothing in Article 11.07 prec ludes Applicant from filing a supplemental claim while his application is pending befor e this Court. I f Applicant does file
a supplemental claim, he shall do so within 30 day s of the date of this order , and the District Clerk shall immediately forwa

rd it to this Court as a supplemental rec ord. Applicant’s motion to rema nd is denied.
Filed: September

16, 2015 Do not publish
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

DWAYNE GRAY,

Petitioner

v.

ALLEN HUNTZINGER AND CENTRAL 

PARKING SYSTEMS, INC.,

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 516 EAL 2016

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 3rd day of April, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

EMILIO DEJESUS

- ZARRAGA, AKA Emilio DeJesus,

Petitioner,

v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. No. 16

- 73609 Agency No. A206

- 406

- 559

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 15, 2018 **

Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

Emilio DeJesus

- Zarraga , a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals ’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum,

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2 ). DeJesus

- Zarraga’s request for oral argument, set forth in his opening brief, is denied. 

# FILED

MAY 22 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 16

- 73609

withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”). Our jurisdi ction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
substantial evidence the agency’ s factual findings. Silaya v. Mukasey , 524 F.3d
1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008)

. We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for

review.
In his opening brief, DeJesus

- Zarraga fails to contest the BIA’s
determination that he waived any challenge to the IJ’s dispositive finding that his
asylum application was untimely. See Corro

- Barragan v. Holder , 718 F.3d 1174,
1177 n.5 (9th Cir. 2013) (failure to contest issue in opening brief resulted in
waiver). Thus, we deny the petition as to DeJesus

- Zarraga ’s asylum claim.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that DeJesus

- Zarraga
failed to establish that he was or would be persecuted in Mexico on account of a
protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder , 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (“An
[applicant’s] desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or
random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground.”).

F urther, we lack jurisdiction to consider the particular social group s DeJesus

Zarraga presents for the first time in his opening brief. See Barron v. Ashcroft , 358
F.3d 674, 677

- 78 (9th Cir. 2004) (petitioner must exhaust issues or claim s in3 16

- 73609

administrativ e proceedings below). Thus, DeJesus

- Zarraga ’s withholding of

removal claim fails.
Finally, s ubstantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief

because DeJesus

- Zarraga failed to establish it is more likely than not he will be

tortured with the consent or acquiescence of the government of Mexico. See Aden

v. Holder , 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 ( 9th Cir. 2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part, DISMISSED in part.
# CE2004078EN.01029201.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/292 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/292

---

(2004/C 78 E/0292)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3489/03

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(24 November 2003)

Subject:   Stepping up supplies to the Sinaga's sugar production units — Azores Autonomous Region

Subject:

The Sinaga — Sociedade de Indústrias Agrícolas Açorianas, S.A. — has informed me that in July 2003, the Azores Autonomous Region (AAR) asked for a 3 000 tonne increase in supplies of white sugar obtained from refining raw sugar. This sugar is essential to keep the company working and save the hundred plus jobs it provides. The increase in the quota represents less than 0,0016 % of Community production, and is vital to the AAR, an ultraperipheral region which is one of the poorest in the EU; the social and economic fabric is weak, and there are no real or economic alternatives.

Sinaga says that the request has not yet been answered by the Community authorities, and that it had no reply to its letter of 7 October 2003 to Commissioner Fischler. As the request is for 2003, it is urgent that a reply be given.

Will the Commission tell me where this request has got to? Does the Commission not think that given the AAR's ultraperipheral status, the quota increase requested should be provided?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(6 January 2004)

(6 January 2004)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written P-3166/03 by Mr Casaca (1).

1

---

(1)  OJ C 70 E, 20.3.2004, p. 229.

1

---
1

John T. Boyd, Chief Justice (Ret.), Seventh Court of Appeals, sitting by assignment. Tex. Gov’t

Code Ann. § 75.002(a)(1) (Vernon Supp. 2002). 

NO. 07-02-0241-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL E

SEPTEMBER 11, 2002

______________________________

JUSTIN JAY SHEPHERD,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, 

Appellee

_________________________________

FROM THE 47TH DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY;

NO. 44331-A; HON. DAVID GLEASON, PRESIDING

_______________________________

Before QUINN and REAVIS, JJ., and BOYD, SJ.1

Pending before the court is Justin Jay Shepherd’s (appellant) motion for extension

of time to file his brief. Accompanying the motion was the brief itself. We grant the motion

and file the brief as of the date received. However, we dismiss the appeal for the want of

jurisdiction.

Pursuant to a plea agreement, appellant was convicted of burglary of a habitation

with intent to commit another felony. The punishment assessed by the court did not
2

exceed the terms of the plea bargain. Thereafter, appellant filed a pro se general notice

of appeal wherein he stated that he was “ignorant” of the law and “was misrepresented by

counsel.” Omitted from the notice, however, was either the statement that the court

granted permission to appeal, that the substance of the appeal involved matters raised by

written motion before trial, or that the appeal “is for jurisdictional defects” as required by

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2(b)(3). Nor did the appellant’s subsequent notice

of appeal contain like statements. Consequently, we lack jurisdiction to entertain the

proceeding, Cooper v. State, 45 S.W.3d 77 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001), and dismiss the appeal

for want of jurisdiction. 

 Per Curiam 

Do Not Publish.