alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# EUR-Lex - 32003D0820 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32003D0820

**2003/820/EC: Commission Decision of 20 November 2003 adjusting the weightings applicable from 1 February, 1 March, 1 April, 1 May and 1 June 2003 to the remuneration of officials of the European Communities serving in third countries **

*
Official Journal L 308 , 25/11/2003 P. 0025 - 0026 *

Commission Decision

of 20 November 2003

adjusting the weightings applicable from 1 February, 1 March, 1 April, 1 May and 1 June 2003 to the remuneration of officials of the European Communities serving in third countries

(2003/820/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities and the conditions of employment of other servants of the Communities laid down by Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 259/68(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC, ECSC, Euratom) No 2265/2002(2), and in particular the second paragraph of Article 13 of Annex X thereto,

Whereas:

(1) Pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 13 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations, Council Regulation (EC, ECSC, Euratom) No 1338/2003(3) laid down the weightings to be applied from 1 January 2003 to the remuneration of officials serving in third countries, payable in the currency of their country of employment.

(2) The Commission has made a number of adjustments to these weightings(4) in recent months, pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 13 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations.

(3) Some of these weightings should be adjusted with effect from 1 February, 1 March, 1 April, 1 May and 1 June 2003 given that the statistics available to the Commission show that in certain third countries the variation in the cost of living measured on the basis of the weighting and the corresponding exchange rate has exceeded 5 % since weightings were last laid down or adjusted,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Sole Article

With effect from 1 February, 1 March, 1 April, 1 May and 1 June 2003 the weightings applicable to the remuneration of officials serving in third countries payable in the currency of their country of employment are adjusted as shown in the Annex.

The exchange rates for the calculation of such remuneration shall be those used for implementation of the general budget of the European Communities for the month preceding the dates referred to in the first paragraph.

Done at Brussels, 20 November 2003.

For the Commission

Christopher Patten

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 56, 4.3.1968, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 347, 20.12.2002, p. 1.

(3) OJ L 189, 29.7.2003, p. 1.

(4) OJ L 152, 20.6.2003, p. 84.

ANNEX

>TABLE>

>TABLE>

>TABLE>

>TABLE>

>TABLE>
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-16-00266-CR

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellant

v.

JOSEPH A. PEREZ,

Appellee

From the 21st District Court

Burleson County, Texas

Trial Court No. 14,911

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The State of Texas appealed the trial court’s order granting the defendant’s motion 

to suppress which was signed on August 1, 2016. The State has now filed a motion to 

withdraw that notice of appeal and dismiss the appeal. The motion is granted, and this

appeal is dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2(a).

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice
State v. Perez Page 2

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Appeal dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed November 9, 2016

Do not publish

[CR25]
III

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 141

To authorize representation by Senate Legal Counsel.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 23 (legislative day, JUNE 19), 1995

Mr. DOLE (for himself and Mr. DASCHLE) submitted the following resolution;

which was considered and agreed to

RESOLUTION

To authorize representation by Senate Legal Counsel.

Whereas, in the case of William D. (Bill) Peterson II v. The

Honorable Senator Orrin G. Hatch, No. 95–C–0352–S,

pending in the United States District Court for the District of Utah, the plaintiff has named Senator Orrin G.

Hatch as the defendant; and

Whereas, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 704(a)(1) of the

Ethics in Government Act of 1978, 2 U.S.C. §§ 288b(a)

and 288c(a)(1) (1994), the Senate may direct its counsel

to defend Members of the Senate in civil actions relating

to their official responsibilities: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That the Senate Legal Counsel is author2 ized to represent Senator Orrin G. Hatch in the case of
2

SRES 141 ATS

1 William D. (Bill) Peterson II v. The Honorable Senator

2 Orrin G. Hatch.

Æ
THIRD AMENDED AND RESTATED DISTRIBUTORSHIP AGREEMENT

     THIS  AMENDMENT,  made this 1st day of May,  2002,  by and  between  PENSAR
TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, a Texas Limited Liability Company with its principal place of
business at 16161 College Oak, Suite 101, San Antonio, TX 78249 ("Pensar");  and
INTERNATIONAL  TEST SYSTEMS,  INC., a Delaware  Corporation having its principal
place  of  business  at  16161   College  Oak,   Suite  101,  San  Antonio,   TX
78249("Distributor").

     WHEREAS,  Pensar and Distributor executed a Distributorship  Agreement (the
"Agreement")  on June 19, 1999 for the exclusive sale and marketing of a certain
proprietary  technology  that enables the design and  production of hardware and
software  products that,  when  coordinated,  are used to test and  troubleshoot
components of printed circuit boards (the "Intellectual Property"); and

     WHEREAS,  the Agreement  was Amended and Restated on April 15th,  2000 (the
"First Amendment"); and

     WHEREAS,  the  Agreement  was Amended and  Restated on June 1st,  2001 (the
"Second Amendment"); and

     WHEREAS,  Pensar and Distributor  desire to cancel Agreement and Amendments
in their entirety;

     NOW,  THEREFORE,  in consideration  of the mutual  promises,  covenants and
conditions contained herein, and for such other good and valuable consideration,
the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby  acknowledged,  the parties agree
as follows:

1.       The  Distributorship  Agreement and its Amendments are hereby cancelled
         in their  entirety and neither  Pensar nor  Distributor  shall have any
         further obligations one to the other.

2.       Both  Pensar and  Distributor  do hereby  mutually  indemnify  and hold
         harmless  one another  from any claims or  liabilities  which may arise
         from the Agreement and/or its Amendments.

WHEREAS,  the parties have set their hand and executed this Third Agreement with
the intention of being fully bound hereby.

PENSAR TECHNOLOGIES, LLC            INTERNATIONAL TEST SYSTEMS, INC.

By: /s/ Carey Birmingham                    By: /s/ Carey Birmingham
---------------------                                ---------------------
Title: President                                     Title: President
#### Montavius Antoine JOHNSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. David MITCHELL, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-6749

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: November 21, 2017

Decided: November 30, 2017

Montavius Antoine Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

*304Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Montavius Antoine Johnson seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition as untimely filed.* The order is not appeal-able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of ap-pealability ’will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When'the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Johnson 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*

*

This appeal follows our remand to the district court for consideration of Johnson’s claims that his petition was timely pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(C), (D) (2012). *See Johnson v. Mitchell,*685 Fed.Appx. 214 (4th Cir. 2017) (No. 16-7216). On remand, the district court thoroughly analyzed these arguments, and Johnson’s appeal is now properly before this court.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Carmelo RODRIGUEZ-VASQUEZ, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-40356 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed December 20, 2017

Ernest Gonzalez, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Texas, Plano, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Carmelo Rodriguez-Vasquez, Pro Se

Before JONES, DENNIS, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Carmelo Rodriguez-Vasquez 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). Rodriguez-Vasquez has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue *262for 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 opiniqn should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>       5

<LEGEND>        This schedule contains summary financial information
                extracted from the Condensed Statement of Operations, the
                Condensed Balance Sheet and the accompanying Notes To The
                Condensed Financial Statements included in the Company's
                Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 1999 and is
                qualified in its entirety by reference to such.

</LEGEND>

<MULTIPLIER>                                      1,000

<S>                                         <C>
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                     9-MOS
<CASH>                                           13,412
<SECURITIES>                                      5,608
<RECEIVABLES>                                    16,792
<ALLOWANCES>                                        195
<INVENTORY>                                      13,100
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 50,590
<PP&E>                                           13,936
<DEPRECIATION>                                    6,233
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   59,803
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             9,941
<BONDS>                                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<COMMON>                                             12
<OTHER-SE>                                       48,517
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     59,803
<SALES>                                          37,480
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 37,480
<CGS>                                            21,641
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    14,675
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  176
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   1,486
<INCOME-TAX>                                        223
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               1,263
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                      1,263
<EPS-BASIC>                                      0.10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      0.10


<PAGE>


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 63 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  2d Session
S. CON. RES. 63

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring),

SECTION 1. USE OF DISASTER RESERVE FOR ASSISTANCE TO LIVESTOCK 
              PRODUCERS.

    In light of the prolonged drought and other adverse weather 
conditions existing in certain areas of the United States, the 
Secretary of Agriculture should promptly dispose of all commodities in 
the disaster reserve maintained under section 813 of the Agricultural 
Act of 1970 (7 U.S.C. 1427a) to relieve the distress of livestock 
producers whose ability to maintain livestock is adversely affected by 
disaster conditions, such as prolonged drought or flooding.

            Passed the Senate June 5, 1996.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
104th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                            S. CON. RES. 63

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

  To express the sense of Congress that the Secretary of Agriculture 
  should dispose of all remaining commodities in the disaster reserve 
 maintained under the Agricultural Act of 1970 to relieve the distress 
of livestock producers whose ability to maintain livestock is adversely 
affected by disaster conditions existing in certain areas of the United 
 States, such as prolonged drought or flooding, and for other purposes.
```
# EUR-Lex - 32003R2324 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32003R2324

**Council Regulation (EC) No 2324/2003 of 17 December 2003 amending Regulation (EC) No 1037/2001 authorising the offer and delivery for direct human consumption of certain imported wines which may have undergone oenological processes not provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 **

*
Official Journal L 345 , 31/12/2003 P. 0024 - 0024 *

Council Regulation (EC) No 2324/2003

of 17 December 2003

amending Regulation (EC) No 1037/2001 authorising the offer and delivery for direct human consumption of certain imported wines which may have undergone oenological processes not provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in wine(1), and in particular Article 45(2) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,

Whereas:

(1) By derogation from Article 45(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999, Regulation (EC) No 1037/2001(2) authorises the import into the Community of American wines which have undergone certain oenological processes not provided for in the Community rules. That authorisation expires on 31 December 2003 in respect of the oenological processes referred to in paragraph 1(b) of the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1037/2001.

(2) Since the ongoing bilateral negotiations with the United States of America will not reach a conclusion before the end of the year, in order to avoid any trade disruptions, provision should be made to continue to authorise the American oenological processes referred to in paragraph 1(b) of the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1037/2001 until the entry into force of the agreement resulting from those negotiations, but until 31 December 2005 at the latest.

(3) Regulation (EC) No 1037/2001 should be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

In the second subparagraph of Article 1(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1037/2001, the date "31 December 2003" shall be replaced by "31 December 2005".

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 17 December 2003.

For the Council

The President

G. Alemanno

(1) OJ L 179, 14.7.1999, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1795/2003 (OJ L 262, 14.10.2003, p. 13).

(2) OJ L 145, 31.5.2001, p. 12.
#### Darrell J. MICKELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Bryan STIRLING; C. Reynolds; Mr. Davis; Mr. Sharpe; Mr. Graham; Mr. Nolan; Mr. Williams; Ms. Shaw; Ms. Smith, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-6282

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: September 29, 2017

Decided: October 12, 2017

Darrell J. Mickell, Appellant Pro Se. David Cornwell Holler, LEE ERTER WILSON HOLLER & SMITH, LLC, Sumter, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Before KEENAN, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Darrell J. Mickell appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment in Miekell’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action and the magistrate judge’s orders denying his motions to appoint counsel and to compel. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Mickell v. Stirling,*No. 6:15-cv-04656-RBH (D.S.C. Dec. 29, 2015; Jan. 25, 2016; Sept. 13, 2016; Feb. 15, 2017). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately, presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                           3,787
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,209
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (421)
<INVENTORY>                                      2,642
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                16,570
<PP&E>                                         613,410
<DEPRECIATION>                               (288,798)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 342,341
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           19,443
<BONDS>                                        141,021
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         32
<COMMON>                                           158
<OTHER-SE>                                     172,866
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   342,341
<SALES>                                         16,460
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                16,656
<CGS>                                           13,274
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   15,753
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    13
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,908
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,018)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,018)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,018)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.23)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.23)
        

</TABLE>
# L_2007049EN.01003501.xml

| 17.2.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 49/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.2.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 49/35

---

Corrigendum to Council Regulation (EC) No 1435/2003 of 22 July 2003 on the Statute for a European Cooperative Society (SCE)

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 207 of 18 August 2003
  )

On page 6, Article 7(5), last sentence:

for:

‘Resignation shall entitle the member to repayment of shares on the conditions laid down in Articles 4(4) and 16.’

read:

‘Resignation shall entitle the member to repayment of shares on the conditions laid down in Articles 3(4) and 16.’

On page 6, Article 7(6), last sentence:

for:

‘Such a decision shall be taken as laid down in Article 62(4).’

read:

‘Such a decision shall be taken as laid down in Article 61(4).’

On page 10, Article 22(1)(f):

for:

| ‘(f) | the special conditions or advantages attached to debentures or securities other than shares which, according to Article 66, do not confer the status of members;’ |
| --- | --- |

‘(f)

the special conditions or advantages attached to debentures or securities other than shares which, according to Article 66, do not confer the status of members;’

read:

| ‘(f) | the special conditions or advantages attached to debentures or securities other than shares which, according to Article 64, do not confer the status of members;’ |
| --- | --- |

‘(f)

the special conditions or advantages attached to debentures or securities other than shares which, according to Article 64, do not confer the status of members;’

On page 13, Article 34(2):

for:

‘2.   The absence of scrutiny of the legality of the merger pursuant to Articles 29 and 30 shall constitute one of the grounds for the winding-up of the SCE, in accordance with the provisions of Article 74.’

read:

‘2.   The absence of scrutiny of the legality of the merger pursuant to Articles 29 and 30 shall constitute one of the grounds for the winding-up of the SCE, in accordance with the provisions of Article 73.’

On page 22, Article 73(4):

for:

‘4.   The Member State in which the SCE's registered office is situated shall seek a judicial or other appropriate remedy ...’

read:

‘4.   The Member State in which the SCE's registered office is situated shall set up a judicial or other appropriate remedy ...’.

---