alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# CE2004084EN.01089602.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/896 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/896

---

(2004/C 84 E/0990)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0856/04

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(19 March 2004)

Subject:   Protecting traditional industries

Subject:

At a recent meeting with representatives of the employees of Fosforeira Portuguesa in Espinho, Portugal, the questioner was informed of the problems the company is experiencing, which may jeopardise its viability in the future. The issue is competition, because of imports of matches from the accession countries and third countries, such as China.

Can the Commission therefore say:

| 1. | whether any research has been carried out into the impact of the forthcoming accession on traditional industries, in particular the match industry, and of China's accession to the WTO; |
| --- | --- |

1.

whether any research has been carried out into the impact of the forthcoming accession on traditional industries, in particular the match industry, and of China's accession to the WTO;

| 2. | what measures it will take to support these traditional industries, with a view to safeguarding jobs? |
| --- | --- |

2.

what measures it will take to support these traditional industries, with a view to safeguarding jobs?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

(30 April 2004)

Certain studies have been carried out by the Commission on the impact of enlargement on European Union industries although no specific studies have been carried out on the match industry. Similarly, no specific studies have been carried out on the impact on the match industry of China's accession to the World Trade Organisation (WTO). In the case of unfair competition from the industry of the accession countries or from the Chinese industry, and in particular the non-respect of the WTO rules, the concerned European enterprise is invited to contact the Commission.

The Commission's general industrial policy is to enhance the competitiveness of European enterprises and to help create an environment in which they can thrive. The Commission refers the Honourable Member to the various work programmes and studies on the impact of enlargement which can be found at: (http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/enterprise_policy/sme-package/index.htm or http://europa.eu.int/comm/arti-cles/enterprise/enlargement/studies.htm).

Moreover, the Commission invites the Honourable Member to refer to the second communication on industrial policy (1) adopted on 20 April 2004.

1

---

(1)  COM(2004)274.

1

---
<PAGE>

                                 Exhibit 23.4

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



As independent auditors, we hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of
our report, dated March 19, 1999 on United Telekabel Holding, N.V. included in
this Annual Report on Form 10-K, into the following previously filed
Registration Statements of UnitedGlobalCom, Inc. (f/k/a United International
Holdings, Inc.):

  .  Registration Statement No. 33-81876 on Form S-8, effective 7/22/94
  .  Registration Statement No. 333-00226 on Form S-8, effective 1/9/96
  .  Registration Statement No. 333-68641 on Form S-8, effective 12/9/98
  .  Registration Statement No. 333-71963 on Form S-8, effective 2/8/99
  .  Registration Statement No. 333-88085 on Form S-8, effective 9/29/99
  .  Registration Statement No. 333-90997 on Form S-3, effective 11/19/99


                                      ARTHUR ANDERSEN


Amstelveen, The Netherlands
March 29, 2000
REF ID:A523009 

~·· outGOlf'~G 

NAVAL MESSAGE 

... _, __ ·-··---·-· ·~----~ -~- ---------

UNCLASSIFIED 

PRECEDENCE 

FLASH 

EMERGENCY 

~ DRAFTED BY~ __ l_.rr_. _F_r_i_ed_ma __ n ____ _ ~ 

z 

0 

....... 

b 

OPERATIONAL 

IMMEDIATE 

LT Peterson ~ DIRNSA PRIORITY ~RELEASED BY __________ _ ROUTINE 

!FLASH I El\rnRGENCY 

OPERATIONAL 

IMMEDIATE 

PRIORITY 

ROUTINE 

NLE~s OTHERWISE INDICATED,_ THIS MESSAG~ 'VIL~_BE TR,J\~Si'l!Iry~l:> ~v~1 ~i!fzRED ~~~EC~~ENC~~ 

~UTIN~ INSTRUCTIONS DATE/TIME GI{OUP (GCT} .. 

i::::~:- --~-- -~ 

~ ~-,:_ 

~ 

~; 

~ 

- _-_-_- -=._o.=-=________,,_' ~ 

(DO NOT USE THIS SPACJt;) 

L-Vl-2089. DIR1;SA FROW FRIEDMAN PD FORITAL SESSIONS OF CONFEREKCE OPENED 

TODAY '.'!ITH MOST IMPOSING ARRAY OF TOP LEVEL UNCLE KING AUTHOHITIES ITEM: 

TIA VE EVER EH COUNTERED AT ONE TABLE PD ALL WEl'IT WE::L _A.Nl) IT3M ?HINK mwl.E . SUGAR TEAU WILL l~OT BE OVEI:NHELMED BY 1JNCLE KilIG DISPLAY OF UPPER LEVEL 

COULD GI; HIM: C01'·ll?08I'~I8N OF OUR 1mw COMSEC BOARD PD ITEr.I CAl{ GIVE ORLY 

BRASS PD~ ~ASKED 1.IE IHFORHALLY AT CLOSE OF HEETilm IF ITEM 

PL 86-36/50 USC 3605 

UNCLASSIFIED . 

Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 05-21-2014 pursuantto E.O. 1352a
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7333

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

CALVIN SMOOT,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District

Judge. (3:04-cr-00131-CMC-15)

Submitted: November 20, 2007 Decided: November 29, 2007

Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Calvin Smoot, Appellant Pro Se. Deborah Brereton Barbier, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Calvin Smoot seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is

not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Smoot has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### Flannigan, Appellant, vs. Lindgren, County Treasurer, Respondent.

*September 6*

September 27, *1904.*

*Appealable order:*Mandamus.

An order In a *mandamus*action denying relator’s application for an order prescribing tbe questions to be tried by a jury, on tbe ground that tbe *mandamus*sought could not be sustained upon tbe case made by tbe pleadings, did not determine tbe action and prevent a judgment from wbicb an appeal might be taken, and is therefore not appealable under subd. 1, sec. 3069, Stats. 1898.

Appeal from an order of the circuit court for Oconto county: S. D. Hastings, Circuit Judge.

*Appeal dismissed.*

Alternative writ of *mandamus*to compel action on the part of respondent, as , county treasurer of Oconto county. Return was made, to which answer was filed. Thereupon relator applied for an order “prescribing what particular questions arising in said action shall be tried'by a jury.” This application was denied by order dated March 9, 1904, on the ground stated both in the order and in the accompanying opinion, that upon the case made by the pleadings *mandamus*could not be sustained to enforce the act desired. Erom this order the relator appeals.

*446Eor tbe appellant there were briefs by *Glasson & Brazeau,*and oral argument by *D. G. Glasson.*

Eor tbe respondent there was a brief by *Greene, Fairchild, North & Parlcer,*and oral argument by *B. H. Btebbins.*

Dodge, J.

It is entirely plain that tbe order submitted to us for review is not within tbe appealable class. It is not even claimed to fall within any except tbe first subdivision of sec. 3069, Stats. 1898:

> “An order affecting a substantial right, made in any action, when such order in effect determines the action and prevents a judgment from which an appeal might be taken.”

But while it may affect a substantial right, and while the views of the court expressed as a reason for the order may be conclusive of the action, this order does not determine the action, for it still pends; nor does the order prevent a judgment from which an appeal may be taken, for the logical result of the views expressed by the court would be a judgment dismissing the writ, from which, of course, this present appellant could take his appeal and review all questions which could arise upon the present order. *St. Patrick’s Cong. v. Home Ins. Co.*101 Wis. 155, 16 N. W. 1125; *In re M. & N. R. Co.*103 Wis. 191, 18 N. W. 753; *Maynard v. Greenfield,*103 Wis. 670, 79 N. W. 407; *Mills v. Conley,*110 Wis. 525, 529, 86 N. W. 203; *Benolkin v. Guthrie,*111 Wis. 554, 557, 87 N. W. 466.

*By the Court.*— Appeal dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                             511
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,496
<ALLOWANCES>                                       162
<INVENTORY>                                        417
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                10,437
<PP&E>                                           4,219
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,989
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  17,636
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,987
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           380
<OTHER-SE>                                       9,429
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    17,636
<SALES>                                         12,972
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                22,005
<CGS>                                            8,337
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   10,650
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                16,042
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    40
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 150
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (5,280)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (2,006)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,274)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,274)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.87)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.87)
        

</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER**

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. §1350)

I, Seth L. Van Voorhees, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of American Pacific Corporation (the “Company”), certify that to the best of my knowledge: 

          (i) the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q dated August 3, 2004 for the period ended June 30, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

          (ii) the information contained in the said Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

|   | /s/ SETH L. VAN VOORHEES                        |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                      |
|   | **Seth L.   Van Voorhees   Chief Financial Officer** |
|   |                                                 |
|   | August 3, 2004                                       |

**-32.2-**
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 170 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to increase the maximum age for 

children eligible for medical care under the CHAMPVA program, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 13, 2015 

Mr. TESTER (for himself, Mrs. MURRAY and Mr. HELLER) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to increase the 

maximum age for children eligible for medical care under 

the CHAMPVA program, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘CHAMPVA Children’s 

5 Care Protection Act of 2015’’. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 170 IS

1 SEC. 2. INCREASE OF MAXIMUM AGE FOR CHILDREN ELIGI2 BLE FOR MEDICAL CARE UNDER CHAMPVA 

3 PROGRAM. 

4 (a) INCREASE.—Subsection (c) of section 1781 of 

5 title 38, United States Code, is amended to read as fol6 lows: 

7 ‘‘(c)(1) Notwithstanding clauses (i) and (iii) of sec8 tion 101(4)(A) of this title and except as provided in para9 graph (2), for purposes of this section, a child who is eligi10 ble for benefits under subsection (a) shall remain eligible 

11 for benefits under this section until the child’s 26th birth12 day, regardless of the child’s marital status. 

13 ‘‘(2) Before January 1, 2016, paragraph (1) shall not 

14 apply to a child who is eligible to enroll in an eligible em15 ployer-sponsored plan (as defined in section 5000A(f)(2) 

16 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986). 

17 ‘‘(3) This subsection shall not be construed to limit 

18 eligibility for benefits under subsection (a) of a child de19 scribed in section 101(4)(A)(ii) of this title.’’. 

20 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—Such subsection, as so 

21 amended, shall apply with respect to medical care provided 

22 on or after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
REF ID:A61420 

USCIB: ';fJ.5/5 

15 November 1954 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE MEMBERS OF USCIB: 

Subject: Approval of USCIB 2$.5/3, dated 27 October 1954. 

No objection having been received to the subject document by 

5 November 1954, the USCIBEC decision reported therein is considered 

approved.. 

USCIB: 2!).5/5 

@'pproved for Release by NSA on 06-04-2014 pursuantto E.O. 1352a
# CE2004088EN.01018301.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/183 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/183

---

(2004/C 88 E/0189)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0411/04

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) and John Bowis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 February 2004)

Subject:   Persecution of the Ahmadiyya Muslim community in Bangladesh

Subject:

Mindful of the amendment of the 2003 Human Rights Report concerning the Pakistani governments inaction over the persecution of Ahmadi Muslims in that country, the Parliament called on the Pakistani government to prevent any further persecution of this minority in the future.

In light of this 2003 Human Rights Report amendment, is the Commission aware that the government of Bangladesh has similarly been appeasing extreme religious groups, who have initiated a campaign of persecution against the Ahmadi Muslim community?

If so, what action will the Commission take to prevent a repetition of what happened in Pakistan in 1974 (i.e. bowing to the demands of fanatical groups resulting in over three decades of sustained persecution and murder of the Ahmadi Muslims and destruction of mosques) from occurring in Bangladesh today?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(12 March 2004)

(12 March 2004)

Both the Commission and the Member States are very concerned by the deteriorating human rights situation of minorities in Bangladesh, including the Ahmadia Muslims. Following the attacks on the Ahmadia Muslim community at the end of 2003, a local EU Troika called on the Government on 23 December 2003 to express the EU's concerns regarding the violation of minority rights.

As the promotion of democratic principles and the respect for human rights constitute essential elements of the Commission's relations with the country, it intends to raise the issue at the next Commission-Bangladesh Joint Commission Subgroup meeting, tentatively scheduled in May 2004. Such meetings provide a formal platform for a structured dialogue on Human Rights and Governance issues. Furthermore, the Commission expects the international donor community to voice its concerns at the next annual Bangladesh Development Forum, also to be held in May 2004.

The Commission also plans to increase its support to specific human rights and governance activities in 2005 and 2006, in the framework of the review of the National Indicative Programme for Bangladesh. At the same time, it continues to monitor very closely the human rights situation through its Delegation in Dhaka.

---
Exhibit 11.1

             KINDER MORGAN ENERGY PARTNERS, L.P. AND SUBSIDIARIES
         EXHIBIT 11 - STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                (Dollars In Thousands Except Per Unit Amounts)

FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31,            2003          2002          2001
================================================================================
Weighted-average number of limited
  partners' units on which limited
  partners' net income per unit is
  based:
Basic                                   185,383,944    172,016,574  153,901,311
Add:  Incremental units under common
  unit option plan                          109,774        169,065      208,764
                                      ------------------------------------------
Assuming dilution                       185,493,718    172,185,639  154,110,075
                                      ==========================================
Income Before Cumulative Effect of a
  Change in Accounting Principle       $    693,872   $    608,377  $   442,343

Add: Cumulative effect adjustment
  from change in Accounting for
  asset retirement obligations                3,465             -            -
                                      ------------------------------------------
Net Income                             $    697,337   $    608,377  $   442,343
                                      ==========================================
Calculation of Limited Partners'
  interest in Net Income:
Income Before Cumulative Effect of a
  Change in Accounting Principle       $    693,872   $    608,377  $   442,343

Less:  General Partner's interest          (326,489)      (270,816)    (202,095)
                                      ------------------------------------------
Limited Partner's interest                  367,383        337,561      240,248

Add:  Limited Partner's interest in
  Change in Accounting Principle              3,430             -            -
                                      ------------------------------------------
Limited Partners' interest in Net
Income                                 $    370,813   $    337,561  $   240,248
                                      ==========================================

Earnings per limited partner unit:
Limited Partners' Income Before
  Cumulative Effect of a Change
  in Accounting Principle per unit:
Basic                                  $      1.98    $       1.96  $      1.56
Diluted                                $      1.98    $       1.96  $      1.56
Limited Partners' Cumulative Effect
  of a Change in Accounting Principle
  per unit:
Basic                                  $       .02              -            -
Diluted                                $       .02              -            -
Limited Partners' Net Income per unit:
Basic                                  $      2.00    $       1.96  $      1.56
Diluted                                $      2.00    $       1.96  $      1.56
# CE2004084EN.01073901.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/739 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/739

---

(2004/C 84 E/0834)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3748/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(10 December 2003)

Subject:   Update on use of funding from the Life III programme by the municipality of Prato

Subject:

In its answer to question E-1057/03 (1), which asked whether the municipality of Prato had submitted projects and secured funding under the Life III programme, the Commission stated that one proposal had been submitted but that the results of the assessment would be available in September 2003.

1

Can the Commission now say whether the project submitted was actually funded and, if not, why it was not considered suitable?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(20 January 2004)

(20 January 2004)

The Commission informs the Honourable Member that the proposal submitted under the LIFE III Programme for 2003 by the municipality of Prato (LIFE03 ENV/IT/000360) was not co-financed. The reasons are given in the Commission's letter of 8 September 2003. The proposal failed criterion ‘Coherence and quality’.

---

(1)  OJ C 280 E, 21.11.2003, p. 104.

1

---
EXHIBIT 11



BAIRNCO CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

CALCULATION OF BASIC AND DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE

FOR THE QUARTERS ENDED APRIL 2, 2005 AND APRIL 3, 2004

(Unaudited)



|                                                                                             | 2005             | 2004            
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------- | ----------------
|BASIC EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE:                                                             |                  |                 
|                                                                                             |                  |                 
|Net income                                                                                   | $ 1,002,000      | $ 1,255,000     
|Average common shares outstanding                                                            | 7,399,000        | 7,342,000       
|Basic Earnings Per Common Share                                                              | $          0.14  | $          0.17 
|                                                                                             |                  |                 
|DILUTED EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE:                                                           |                  |                 
|                                                                                             |                  |                 
|Net income                                                                                   | $  1,002,000     | $  1,255,000    
|Average common shares outstanding                                                            | 7,399,000        | 7,342,000       
|Dilutive effect of restricted stock                                                          | 72,000           | 39,000          
|Common shares issuable in respect to options issued      to employees with a dilutive effect | 204,000          | 50,000          
|Total diluted common shares outstanding                                                      | 7,675,000        | 7,431,000       
|Diluted Earnings Per Common Share                                                            | $           0.13 | $           0.17
|                                                                                             |                  |                 











#