alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# EUR-Lex - 32003E0366 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32003E0366

**Council Common Position 2003/366/CFSP of 19 May 2003 amending Common Position 2002/400/CFSP concerning the temporary reception by Member States of the European Union of certain Palestinians **

*
Official Journal L 124 , 20/05/2003 P. 0051 - 0051 *

Council Common Position 2003/366/CFSP

of 19 May 2003

amending Common Position 2002/400/CFSP concerning the temporary reception by Member States of the European Union of certain Palestinians

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 15 thereof,

Whereas:

(1) On 21 May 2002, the Council adopted Common Position 2002/400/CFSP concerning the temporary reception by Member States of the European Union of certain Palestinians(1) and granting them national permits valid for a period of up to 12 months.

(2) The validity of those permits should be extended,

HAS ADOPTED THIS COMMON POSITION:

Article 1

Common Position 2002/400/CFSP is hereby amended as follows:

1. The first subparagraph of Article 3 shall read as follows:"Each of the Member States referred to in Article 2 shall provide the Palestinians it receives with a national permit to enter its territory and stay for a period of up to 24 months."

2. Article 8 shall read as follows:

"Article 8

The Council shall keep the application of this Common Position under review and shall evaluate such application within 23 months from its adoption or earlier at the request of any of its members."

Article 2

This Common Position shall take effect on the day of its adoption.

Article 3

This Common Position shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 19 May 2003.

For the Council

The President

G. Papandreou

(1) OJ L 138, 28.5.2002, p. 33.
Ernst & Young LLr Phone:             Phone: (612) 343-1000
                    220 South Sixth Street, Ste. 1400    www.ey.com
                    Minneapolis, MN 55402-4509


                                                                    Exhibit 34.1




             Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Board of Directors
U.S. Bank National Association

We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying Report on
Assessment of Compliance with Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
Regulation AB Servicing Criteria, that U.S. Bank National Association (the
Company) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the
SEC's Regulation AB for the Structured Repackaging platform (the Platform) as of
and for the year ended December 31, 2007, except for servicing criteria
1122(d)(1)(i), 1122(d)(1)(iii), 1122(d)(2)(iii), 1122(d)(4)(i), 1122(d)(4)(vi),
and 1122(d)(4)(ix)-(xv), which the Company has determined are not applicable to
the activities performed by them with respect to the servicing platform covered
by this report. Management is responsible for the Company's compliance with
those servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on
management's assertion about the Company's compliance with the servicing
criteria based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards
established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, as
adopted by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and,
accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's
compliance with the applicable servicing criteria and performing such other
procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination
included testing of less than all of the individual asset backed transactions
and securities that comprise the Platform, testing of less than all of the
servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether the
Company processed those selected transactions and performed those selected
activities in compliance with the servicing criteria. Furthermore, our
procedures were limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities
performed by the Company during the period covered by this report. Our
procedures were not designed to determine whether errors may have occurred
either prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances
or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by
this report for the selected transactions or any other transactions. We believe
that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our
examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company's compliance
with the servicing criteria.

In our opinion, management's assertion that the Company complied with the
aforementioned servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31,
2007, for the Structured Repackaging platform is fairly stated, in all material
respects.

                                                           /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Minneapolis, Minnesota
February 12, 2008
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 01909**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket**  **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name Description**  

### 01909\01909_ Certification Statement.pdf Plant certification statement 

### 01909\01909_ Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist 

### 01909\01909_ HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted x 

### 01909\01909_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook x 

### 01909\01909_PartA.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 01909\01909_PartB.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 01909\01909_PartC.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 01909\01909_PartD.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 01909\01909_PartH.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 01909\Supporting Documents\01909_ A5-2 Map-1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 

### 01909\Supporting Documents\01909_ A5-3 WB-1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 

### 01909\Supporting Documents\01909_ D3-1 Pond-1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey



### 01909\Supporting Documents\01909_ Submittal Letter.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database

. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

                           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 Applied Graphics Technologies,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2002, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Kenneth Torosian, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

          (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
     or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

          (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
     material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
     Company.

<Table>
<S>                                             <C>
                                                           /s/ KENNETH G. TOROSIAN
                                                ---------------------------------------------
                                                             Kenneth G. Torosian
                                                          Senior Vice President and
                                                           Chief Financial Officer
                                                               August 14, 2002
</Table>
<PAGE>   1




                                                                    Exhibit 15.1


The Board of Directors
PowerCerv Corporation


We are aware of the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Form S-8 No. 333-3960) of PowerCerv Corporation for the registration of
3,675,000 shares of its common stock of our report dated October 14, 1998
relating to the unaudited condensed consolidated interim financial statements of
PowerCerv Corporation that is included in its Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
September 30, 1998.

Pursuant to Rule 436(c) of the Securities Act of 1933, our reports are not a
part of the registration statement prepared or certified by accountants within
the meaning of Section 7 or 11 of the Securities Act of 1933.


                                                     /s/ Ernst & Young LLP
                                                     --------------------------
                                                     Ernst & Young LLP

Tampa, Florida
November 16, 1998










                                       22
# EUR-Lex - 32001D0248 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32001D0248

**2001/248/EC: Council Decision of 19 March 2001 concerning the conclusion of the framework Agreement for Trade and Cooperation between the European Community and its Member States, on the one hand, and the Republic of Korea, on the other hand of the Framework Agreement for Trade and Cooperation between the European Community and its Member States, on the one hand, and the Republic of Korea, on the other hand **

*
Official Journal L 090 , 30/03/2001 P. 0045 - 0045 *

Council Decision

of 19 March 2001

concerning the conclusion of the framework Agreement for Trade and Cooperation between the European Community and its Member States, on the one hand, and the Republic of Korea, on the other hand

(2001/248/EC)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 57(2), Article 71, Article 80(2), and Articles 133 and 308 thereof, in conjunction with the second sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 300(2) and the first subparagraph of Article 300(3) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission(1),

Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament(2),

Having consulted the Economic and Social Committee,

Whereas:

The Agreement referred to in this Decision should be approved,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The framework Agreement for Trade and Cooperation between the European Community and its Member States, of the one hand, and the Republic of Korea, of the other hand, is hereby approved on behalf of the Community.

The text of the Agreement is attached to this Decision.

Article 2

1. A representative of the Commission, assisted by representatives of the Member States, shall represent the Community in the Joint Committee provided for in Article 19(3) of the framework Agreement.

2. The position to be taken by the Community within the Joint Committee when it makes recommendations shall be laid down by the Council, on a proposal by the Commission, in accordance with the corresponding provisions of the Treaty establishing the European Community.

Article 3

The President of the Council shall, on behalf the Community, give the notification provided for in Article 21 of the framework Agreement.

Article 4

This Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

Done at Brussels, 19 March 2001.

For the Council

The President

A. Lindh

(1) OJ C 188, 28.6.1996, p. 11.

(2) OJ C 104, 14.4.1999, p. 59.
# L_2004240EN.01001602.xml

| 10.7.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 240/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.7.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 240/16

---

Corrigendum to Council Regulation (EC) No 2369/2002 of 20 December 2002 amending Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999 laying down the detailed rules and arrangements regarding Community structural assistance in the fisheries sector

(
  Official Journal of the European Communities L 358 of 31 December 2002
  )

On page 50, in Article 1(3)(a) (as regards the end of the first subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999):

for:

‘Regulation (EC) No 2370/2002’,

read:

‘Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002’.

---
Exhibit 35

                             ITEM 1123 CERTIFICATION

I, David J. Kolibachuk, Vice President of U.S. Bank National Association (the
"Servicer"), hereby certify that:

(1) A review of the activities of the Servicer during the fiscal year covered by
this annual report on Form 10-K and of the performance of the Servicer under the
Standard Terms for Trust Agreement, dated as of November 9, 2006, between the
Servicer and the depositor (the "Agreement") has been made under my supervision;
and

(2) To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has
fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects
throughout the reporting period, or, if there has been a failure to fulfill any
such obligation in any material respect, I have specified below each such
failure known to me and the nature and status thereof.


Date: March 26, 2008


                                      /s/ David J. Kolibachuk
                                    ------------------------------
                                    David J. Kolibachuk
                                    Vice President
#### IN RE: Kenneth Wayne LEWIS, Petitioner

No. 17-3461

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P. December 7, 2017

(Opinion filed: December 12, 2017)

Kenneth Wayne Lewis, Pro Se

Before: AMBRO, RESTREPO, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges

OPINION *

PER CURIAM

Kenneth Lewis has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking an order compelling the District Court to enter summary judgment in a civil case, Lewis v. Sessions, No. 3:17-cv-05475 (D.N.J. filed July 26, 2017),1 He also seeks an order *101compelling the District Court to file an addendum in the civil case, send a file-stamped copy of the addendum to him, and execute particular subpoenas.

A writ of mandamus is a drastic remedy available only in extraordinary cases. See In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir. 2005). A petitioner seeking mandamus must demonstrate that “(1) no other adequate means exist to attain the relief he desires, (2) the party’s right to issuance of the writ is clear and indisputable, and (3) the writ is appropriate under the circumstances.” Hollingsworth v. Perry, 558 U.S. 183, 190, 130 S.Ct. 705, 175 L.Ed.2d 657 (2010) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Here, there is no basis for granting the petition for a- writ of mandamus. The District Court docket reflects that the District Court entered a November 3, 2017 order administratively terminating Lewis’s civil case because he did not file a complete application to proceed in forma pauperis. Although Lewis has since submitted other documents in the District Court, it does not appear that he has complied with the District Court’s order, and his case remains administratively terminated. In any event, Lewis has not shown that he is entitled to mandamus relief, as he has not demonstrated a clear and indisputable right to the writ or that he has no other adequate means to obtain the relief desired.

For these reasons, we will deny Lewis’s petition for a writ of mandamus.

*

 This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.

1

. Although Lewis has titled his filing "Affidavit Writ of Mandamus," we construe it as a petition for a writ of mandamus in light of the relief that he seeks. See United States v. Fiorelli, 337 F.3d 282, 287-88 (3d Cir. 2003) (stat*101ing that the function of a motion, not the caption, determines how it is treated).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                         284,535
<SECURITIES>                                     6,456
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,238
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        805
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               349,803
<PP&E>                                          57,830
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 772,382
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          364,664
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           361
<OTHER-SE>                                     407,357
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   772,382
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                56,694
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   47,840
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,481
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,854
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,900
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,954
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,954
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.14
        

</TABLE>
#### Gabriel A. FIGUEROA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Charles L. RYAN, Warden; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-16078

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted November 15, 2017 *

Filed November 20, 2017

Gabriel A. Figueroa, Pro Se

Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Arizona state prisoner Gabriel A. Figueroa appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations, We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. *Wilhelm v. Rotman,*680 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th Cir. 2012). *We*affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

The district court properly dismissed Figueroa’s due process claim and medical deliberate indifference claim against all defendants except defendants Grafton, Johnson, and Ryan because Figueroa failed to allege facts sufficient to state any plausible claim for relief. *See Hebbe v. Pliler,*627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed, a plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief); *see also Toguehi v. Chung,*391 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 2004) (setting forth requirements for a deliberate indifference claim and stating that negligence is insufficient to establish a constitutional violation); *Tsao v. Desert Palace, Inc.,*698 F.3d 1128, 1139 (9th Cir. 2012) (setting forth the elements of a § 1983 claim against a private entity performing a government function).

However, dismissal of Figueroa’s medical deliberate indifference claim against defendants Grafton, Johnson, and Ryan was premature because Figueroa alleged that he told Grafton, Johnson, and Ryan that he was suffering complications and side effects from his medications, and that Grafton, Johnson, and Ryan refused to *541help. These allegations, liberally construed, are “sufficient to warrant ordering [these defendants] to file an answer.” *Wilhelm,*680 F.3d at 1116.

We reverse the dismissal of Figueroa’s medical deliberate indifference claim against defendants Grafton, Johnson, and Ryan, and remand for further proceedings as to these defendants only.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Ulises CAVAZOS-DE LA FUENTE, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-50904 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed April 4, 2017

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Ulises Cavazos-De La Fuente, Pro Se

Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Ulises Cavazos-De La Fuente has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Cava-zos-De La Fuente has filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Cavazos-De La Fuente’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivo-lous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
II

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 778

To amend the National Labor Relations Act to permit the selection of an

employee labor organization through the signing of a labor organization

membership card by a majority of employees and a subsequent election,

and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 9 (legislative day, MAY 1), 1995

Mr. SIMON introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources

A BILL

To amend the National Labor Relations Act to permit the

selection of an employee labor organization through the

signing of a labor organization membership card by a

majority of employees and a subsequent election, 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 ‘‘Labor Relations

5 Representative Amendment Act of 1995’’.
2

•S 778 IS

1 SEC. 2. RECOGNITION OF SELECTED LABOR REPRESENTA2 TIVE.

3 Section 9 of the National Labor Relations Act (29

4 U.S.C. 159) is amended by adding at the end the following

5 new subsection:

6 ‘‘(f)(1) Not later than 30 days after the receipt of

7 signed union recognition cards, which designate an entity

8 as the employee’s labor organization, from 60 percent of

9 the employees of the employer, the Board shall direct an

10 expedited election with respect to the selection of the en11 tity as the exclusive collective bargaining representative of

12 such employees.

13 ‘‘(2) The expedited election, as directed by the Board,

14 may not be delayed for any reason or purpose.

15 ‘‘(3) The Board shall promulgate regulations that im16 plement rules and procedures to address any challenges

17 with respect to the designation or selection of an exclusive

18 collective bargaining representative under this subsection.

19 ‘‘(4) The challenges described in paragraph (3) may

20 be brought only after the expedited election described in

21 paragraph (1).’’.

Æ