alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# CE2004084EN.01041101.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/411 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/411

---

(2004/C 84 E/0478)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0538/04

by Kathalijne Buitenweg (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(24 February 2004)

Subject:   Language discrimination in notices of vacancy — ‘English mother tongue’ or ‘native speaker’

Subject:

In reply to question E-2226/03 (1), the Commission states that all Commission services have been made aware of possible discriminatory job advertisements and asked to take the necessary steps as regards their contractors. The Commission also states in its reply that it tries to avoid cooperation with organisations which publish job advertisements with a ‘native speaker’ criterion. The Commission goes on to stress that it intends to use its legal powers to fight against the use of a ‘native speaker’ criterion in job advertisements.

1

The European Esperanto Union states that, despite previous warnings from the Commission, discriminatory notices of vacancy are still being published which require candidates to meet such criteria as ‘English mother tongue’ or ‘native English speakers’. Copies of the discriminatory notices of vacancy can be found at www.lingvo.org/eo/2/15.

| 1. | Is the Commission aware of the advertising of these vacancies? If so, has the Commission used its legal powers to combat this discriminatory requirement? If so, how? If not, why not? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Commission aware of the advertising of these vacancies? If so, has the Commission used its legal powers to combat this discriminatory requirement? If so, how? If not, why not?

| 2. | What steps will the Commission take to prevent vacancies from being advertised with such requirements as ‘English mother tongue’ or ‘native speaker’ in future? |
| --- | --- |

2.

What steps will the Commission take to prevent vacancies from being advertised with such requirements as ‘English mother tongue’ or ‘native speaker’ in future?

---

(1)  OJ C 33 E, 6.2.2004, p. 236.

1

---
# CE2004088EN.01019901.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/199 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/199

---

(2004/C 88 E/0205)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0660/04

by Roger Helmer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 March 2004)

Subject:   NGO funding

Subject:

Can the Commission please tell me:

| — | the total budget the EU allocates to fund NGOs, civil society groups and political or information movements on a one-off or revenue funding; |
| --- | --- |

—

the total budget the EU allocates to fund NGOs, civil society groups and political or information movements on a one-off or revenue funding;

| — | which specific NGOs receive grants, funding or expenses from the EU, how much and how often? |
| --- | --- |

—

which specific NGOs receive grants, funding or expenses from the EU, how much and how often?

| — | on what criteria NGOs are considered eligible for grants, funding and/or expenses from the EU? |
| --- | --- |

—

on what criteria NGOs are considered eligible for grants, funding and/or expenses from the EU?

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(28 April 2004)

(28 April 2004)

The Financial Regulation (FR) and its Implementing Rules do not provide for special rules for nongovernmental organisations (NGOs), therefore they are not treated distinctly from other natural or legal persons. Thus, they have to comply with the general exclusion and selection criteria applicable to all beneficiaries. However, Part Two, Title IV of the FR contains special rules for external actions. Furthermore, specific eligibility criteria may be established in the action programmes and calls for proposals linked to the various actions.

NGOs are collaborating with the Commission in the implementation of a great number of actions both within and outside the EU. As they are normally not treated distinctly from other organisations, bodies or firms, the Commissions records do not determine the level of NGO funding. In many cases, NGOs are implementing partners and not the end beneficiaries of community actions. Hence the Commission cannot provide answers to the first two questions of the Honourable Member.

However, a lot of information on cooperation with NGOs can be found on the Europa internet site. Examples include actions within the EU on education and culture (http://europa.eu.int/comm/dgs/educationculture/civilsociety/fr.htm) or in the area of international development (http://europa.eu.int/comm/europeaid/projects/ongcd/indexfr.htm).

---
-:_-. 

r 

l 

•-. .. ~-

... -. ~ -- ~ "'-::......;~ __ ...... --=:--'"T ~ 

r a£:_--~-

--

~ friR TRI DIRF-CTf'R1 FT:nER·,L ~-AU,, DllE'.:l'IGATIOR 

9UBJ'F.CT1 •J~ D1plama.t1c secret:s,• JWnwseri;Jt ct 

1. 11'b.l'augh the rood ctt'!cp of t.ne l>epllrtrit.·rit. .ot Jwttlca this 

Aprt/!T v.s •quired fOJf 11tld7 IUli -psm;r.att tile a ld.orot'ihl copy ot 

the RbJaot. unu.eortpt., t.he p'lablicatinn ot 111blch was pl"ftmted b)" 1i1'9 

npid e&ae~ o'f spfitt1al l•C1wt1on tor the protectio:! ot diplcx:=Uc 

cod.ea (Ac1. lO J\lae 1933 {146 ~;t.a~. 122) 22 1J.s.c. US)). 

1. until Uie ogpi,r w~ a.rdlablo tor ..wtt-J", 1t w&:J thD om~ 

~easion ~ U .. ~. ca.·.r:r &Ut~oritin '\Mt tho 111"1.ter ot the MDUilJipt. .U llli. ~. ~. Yaftll.•, the autliort of fho Amr1C An 3lack O'teat>er. 

SotM¥'1l"_, u:p«t txlli!ntne .... eubjoot ~pi, lG mar p:\i'POi'G G 

ltie • lra.rle 3\aart noos, \d10 1n l?.3.? or 1933 apptlU"S to nave resided 1n ~ Jrlar_, V1qin!a, am vu ~obabl.1 eitrwr • at:i!ent ar • lid>er of 

'1:.t t~t.; of :iv.et 3t1..al" CoUep. .U.01. 1t appears t.h&t. the t1.fti ot 

Gecrge T •. a,,. ~ qt!•• f.b.im :tocat.ed at. Sl!1 riftb AT.mu* lw tork Cit)", 

flln;ed sit lltaraey ag&t tor tM author ot tho mnqOr.tpt.. 

I• htwral queat!on~ arl1i411• Tif.i.o is or vu 'Huitt "f.uarl. ttoo!lJ U 

•t.Ul ~rl.nz, Wita.1'it u ab• 11.i'd vh~ t does stw do J hci'1 414 .a. acquire t.bl 

~t. deoodod Japanese aesuees1 Whioh U9 q\\oQted Ul \ha l!WllUICr1pt W 

11b1\:h &f'})03.X- to bo aut.'ientiCJ vhorG an \bo:se MSMc;et'S DOVI W1•t. Nl.at.lonllh1.ps «dated at. t."W t.iu of W'J.t!ni -.on.3 noes. t~, a.mi tJ19 UterM7 aomtT 

i.. Alt,,.~ \he pat'fmtga ot \.\m$ &Ad the C1onfJ or tl1S t'Yent vu 

Cth JApan have mtllltied l!!.UCh or the nl~ ot t.he ...a:_::es -r.l~,ltd 1n 

Ulis Ull\l..ICrlDt 1 t. 1a H'ftrthot.sa 4el#JOd .SYi•t.l.ll• to locatfJ t.hml fir 

to 1.rls~ t!la\ f.hOJ :Iii.Ye ba?t. do!Jtra';ed.. id~• aoec,.i•:Ung t.e ll~CTB ~.Jl..., tionu tor t.he ~toct1an ot Co;.tr ... r a::.....rces, •t.i..,.. U... l.W t tor the 

..ttr.{uiudin;. or Mml'1' U\'81' upUit9 •• 

,;. l'll7 W~:..tion 70u .-, lM able to ~1¥ in Uds cOZWJDtiozi 

1fill be awno1aw. 

' . 

Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 06-16-2014 pursuantto E .0. 1352a
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-13-00004-CV

CLEAR CREEK ENERGY, LLC,

Appellant

v.

Kent SCHWARTZ and Daina Schwartz,

Appellees

From the 81st Judicial District Court, Atascosa County, Texas

Trial Court No. 10-04-0253-CVA

Honorable Stella Saxon, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE BARNARD, JUSTICE MARTINEZ, AND JUSTICE ALVAREZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the motion to dismiss is GRANTED 

and this appeal is DISMISSED. 

All costs are ORDERED assessed against the party who incurred them.

SIGNED June 26, 2013.

_________________________________

Marialyn Barnard, Justice
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Richard CLECKLER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 78-5147

Summary Calendar.*

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Aug. 23, 1978.

*1056Scott Q. Kirkland, Montgomery, Ala., for defendant-appellant.

Barry E. Teague, U. S. Atty., David L. Allred, Asst. U. S. Atty., Montgomery, Ala., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before RONEY, GEE and FAY, Circuit Judges.

*

 Rule 18, 5 Cir., *see Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York et al.,*5 Cir., 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I.

PER CURIAM:

Defendant James Richard Cleckler, convicted of unlawful and knowing possession of an unregistered firearm [26 U.S.C.A. § 5861(d)], attacks the validity of the search of his residence because the affidavit supporting the warrant (1) did not set forth the time when the informer saw the homemade bomb described in the warrant, (2) used the past tense in describing the informer’s observations, (3) described only an isolated offense, and (4) failed to properly support the need for timeliness. The homemade bomb sought was not found, but the illegal gun was.

Reading the affidavit in a realistic and commonsense manner, *United States v. Maestas,*546 F.2d 1177, 1180 (5th Cir. 1977), the affidavit supports the finding of probable cause necessary to validate the warrant. *See United States v. Guinn,*454 F.2d 29 (5th Cir.), *cert. denied,*407 U.S. 911, 92 S.Ct. 2437, 32 L.Ed.2d 685 (1972).

The affidavit states that within the last 24 hours affiant received confidential information that “said Informer has seen with his own eyes a homemade bomb made with four sticks of dynamite taped together around an alarm clock with four wires connected to said clock,” and that the device “is” hidden in a closet of Cleckler’s residence. The clear inference to be drawn from the affidavit is that the information is recent, so that the exact time the informer saw the article is unimportant in context. The affidavit went on to state that such device is dangerous and “may easily be used to create an explosion or to set a fire as some of the arson cases which are under investigation appear that they may have been started by a type of explosion.” These facts support affiant’s statement that there is need for an immediate search.

All defendant’s objections to the affidavit are technical and without sufficient merit to overcome the legal principles which require only a showing of probability of criminal activity, *Spinelli v. United States,*393 U.S. 410, 89 S.Ct. 584, 21 L.Ed.2d 637 (1969), and admonish that doubtful or marginal cases “should be largely determined by the preference to be accorded to warrants.” *United States v. Ventresca,*380 U.S. 102, 109, 85 S.Ct. 741, 746, 13 L.Ed.2d 684 (1965). *See also, Franks v. Delaware,*— U.S. — , — — , 98 S.Ct. 2674, 2684, 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978).

AFFIRMED.
p130239.eng

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 13-0239

Focus Ready Draft 2/14/2013

ENGINEER: Prothero \ JAS

 

MSDS: No Label: No

TLV/PEL:

No MSDS provided.

 

 

 

 

 

 

SAT (concerns) (02/05/2013):

Related Cases and Related Cases and Misc SAT Info:

Ecotox Related Cases: 

PBT rating: P2B1T1 PMN: P1B1T1. Hyd Pdt isophorone

diamine: P2B1T1.

Health: 1-2 Dermal, Inhalation, XB Testing (Testing

desired)

Eco: 3 Water (All releases to water with a CoC = 1 ppb. ),

XB Testing (Testing desired)

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE RATING: 1C

Page 1

EPA SANITIZED Page 1 of 5
p130239.eng

NOTES & KEY ASSUMPTIONS:

Generated by the 06/07/2005 version of ChemSTEER. 

 

 

EXPOSURE-BASED REVIEW: Yes (1 criteria met)

1) # of workers exposed: 529 >1000? No

2) >100 workers with >10 mg/day inhalation exposure: No

3) (a) >100 workers w/1-10 mg/day inh. exp. & >100

days/yr: No

 (b) Routine Dermal Cont: >250 workers & >100 days/yr:

Yes

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 13-0239

Processing: 

Number of Sites/ Location: 1

Sika Corporation Marion OH 43301

Days/yr: 262

Page 2

EPA SANITIZED Page 2 of 5
p130239.eng

ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES ESTIMATE SUMMARY

IRER Note: The daily releases listed for any source below

may coincide with daily releases from the other sources

to the same medium. Water and Air releases - not expected

for this site and process.

Incineration

Output 2: 4.5E-3 kg/site-day over 262 days/yr from 1 site

or 1.2E+0 kg/yr

 

Incineration

Conservative: 3.8E+0 kg/site-day over 262 days/yr from 1

site

or 1.0E+3 kg/yr

 

Landfill

High End: 2.3E+0 kg/site-day over 262 days/yr from 1 site

or 6.0E+2 kg/yr

RELEASE TOTAL

1.6E+3 kg/yr - all sites

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURES ESTIMATE SUMMARY

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 13-0239

Use: 

Page 3

EPA SANITIZED Page 3 of 5
p130239.eng

Number of Sites/ Location: 175

unknown site(s)

Days/yr: 250

ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES ESTIMATE SUMMARY

IRER Note: The daily releases listed for any source below

may coincide with daily releases from the other sources

to the same medium. Water and Air releases - not expected

for this application.

Incineration or Landfill

High End: 1.6E-2 kg/site-day over 210 days/yr from 175

sites

or 6.0E+2 kg/yr

 

Incineration or Landfill

What-If: 2.2E-1 kg/site-day over 250 days/yr from 175

sites

or 9.6E+3 kg/yr

 

RELEASE TOTAL

1.0E+4 kg/yr - all sites

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURES ESTIMATE SUMMARY

 

Page 4

EPA SANITIZED Page 4 of 5
p130239.eng

Page 5

EPA SANITIZED Page 5 of 5
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

    As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the use of our
reports (and to all references to our Firm) included in or made a part of this
registration statement.

                                                 /s/ Arthur Andersen LLP

Boston, Massachusetts
December 10, 1999
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. §1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Iteris, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the quarter ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Abbas Mohaddes, ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.                                       The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.                                       The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
|   | /s/  ABBAS MOHADDES      |
|--------|--------------------------|
|   | Abbas  Mohaddes          |
|   | Chief  Executive Officer |
|   |                     |
|   | August 11,  2009    |

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906, or anyother document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signaturethat appears in typed form within the electronic version of this writtenstatement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company andwill be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                       2,212,570
<SECURITIES>                                    19,635
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       8,279,068
<DEPRECIATION>                                 333,269
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              11,819,402
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                      5,859,857
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,086
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,195,715
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                11,819,402
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,287,418
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  326,633
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             357,793
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                658,326
<INCOME-TAX>                                   290,091
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            368,235
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   368,235
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .89
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
.. _ BEF .. ID ~A522476 1 (l.. lo.JJJ·V-.\. ;i .l, .t.' J. \.V,.-, i:i ;VS/'~ - rfy ,.,,,,,cl ... ....._ 

27 November 1953 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD 

Subject::~ f.'..-nendment~. to Papers of Combined Working 

Group for Allied Communications Security. 

1. Th'.:.': ctllingas desc:i:-1bed below were agreed upon at the meet1n.:~ cf the CWG on 25 November 1953, subject to 

final f::..,'•it:1.ah approval. The affected documents will 

not be distributed in amended form until that-approval 

is rec··:~:.ved. 

2. 1r1·,?- .Dra.ft Aide Mentoire is to be changed as follows: 

(a) 

(bj: 

In paragraph l delete "security" from the 

n . .rst sentence and· from the final clause of 

the last sentence . 

In ~aragraph 2 replace the first sentence with 

the following: 

"The problem is twofold, involving not only the security of ciphers but also the security 

Of transmiS3iOn practices. 11 

(c} Jn paragraph 3 insert between the first and 

last sentenc~ea the following: · 

11The UK and US Governments are conscious of 

a mnnber of wealmesses in their own national 

comm1m1cat1ons practices. The French 

Government nay also have noted similar 

wec.tmessea in their own practices. 

3 . Pa .;·:_,_graph l ( c) of the memorandum on the conman 

sectio\;3 of the· Ambansadors • briefs should be re·written 

as follows: 

Hevelation within the l.1.m1ts set torth in 

the conference report (See para (a) above) 

,,,.,,·111 be reserved for the technical discussions · ;:;11emselves". 

PL 86-36/50 USC 3605 

EO 3 . 3 ( h) ( 2 ) 

23-176 11-2:;_ 

Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 06-03-2014 pursuantto E.O. 1352a
TO 

"'""'T" I .... _--.v..,,--;::r"llft 

" - -:. - "A - " 

:~R, 

-.ND I OR-CARRIER 

MUST REMAIN WITH ATIACHED PAPERS 

NUMBER EACH MEMO OR REPLY IN LEFT BORDER, PLACE NAME, RANK AND 

TELEPHONE NUMBER BOTTOM OF EACH ACTION. DR.AW LINI;.lJNDER EACH AOION .. ----- --

ENTER FILE CLASSIFICATION ADJUT~~ .. :--::: .•.:--. -:_:-. :;......,;;_,4ii!iiii!WI 

FROM DATE SUBJEO 

AS-14 AS-61 Rotation Pl~ ~omndttee~ 

There 

e to minutes ot meeting of the Rotation Plan Committee,, 

een made in the "Rotation Plan" as to what security 

n regard to his origina1 position during his period ot 

t when rotation is complst.ed. he will eventually return 

position trom. which the rotation started.. This is 

and should be part of the "Plan" so that before 

ent will have assurance where he will finally- end up. 

hould. be given to those being rotated ao_that~hot.h grade 

ed. and will not be affected by the rotation. Case ot 

was downgraded from P-6 to P-5. 

uggest that rotation be based on a "detail" basis rather than 

new posi ion. Detail could be set u,p tor duration of the 

e a guarantee to the incum.bem. ot both his grade and 

have bing of value to the "Plan". However it the CoJllJlittee so desires 

e ad.vis ble tor wo, or more members, including the Chief,, P & T Branch,, 

a'visit to the s ureas in the Washington A~. 

)" 

~ L. 

<!)~ 'lJLLIVAN -1.f J Chief,, Personnel and 

Training Branch 

Extension 222 

. r. ·:~ '----....l....---l-...-----L-----------. -... = .. ·..;.._..:.. =--==-=-=--=· -~------'--=-'=--,;;...., '::=!.•--+ ·-· --

WDGAS 1018 i6 Nov 45 419.CO PAGE NO, __ _ 

- - -= - - __ :. ---':'" -

eclassified and a ursuant to E .0. 1352
*May 7, 1940.*

#### Hoffmann, Respondent, vs. Fichaux and another, Appellants.

For the appellants: *John C. Fellens*of Milwaukee.

For the respondent: *M. J. Levin*of Milwaukee.

*By the Court.-*—

Judgment affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-7887

SHAWN A. CLARK, Petitioner - Appellant,

v. WARDEN MCCORMICK CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent – Appellee,

and

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (3:07-cv-01755-TLW)

Submitted: January 15, 2009 Decided: January 23, 2009

Before MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Shawn A. Clark, Appellant Pro Se. Melody Jane Brown, Assistant Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

23 PER CURIAM: Shawn A. Clark seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. 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 Clark 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