alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# CE2004065EN.01022201.xml

| 13.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 65/222 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 65/222

---

(2004/C 65 E/236)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2816/03

by Joan Vallvé (ELDR) to the Commission

(19 September 2003)

Subject:   Community initiatives

Subject:

The Berlin European Council of March 1999 approved the economic resources for the Structural Funds and the Community Initiatives for 2000-2006.

The Community Initiatives support European-scale policies on completing the Union. They are activities which the Commission proposes to the Member States, with a view to resolving specific existing programmes throughout Union territory. They supplement the work of the Community Support Frameworks and the Single Programming Documents, which the Commission and the Member States negotiated on the basis of regional or national development plans.

For 2000-2006, over which period the Commission wished to step up the European dimension of the Community Initiatives, and likewise the way in which it complements priority objectives.

Four Community Initiatives are to be carried out, each one funded by one of the Structural Funds:

| — | Interreg III: Cross-border, transnational and interregional cooperation (ERDF); |
| --- | --- |

—

Interreg III: Cross-border, transnational and interregional cooperation (ERDF);

| — | Urban II: Regenerating urban areas in crisis (ERDF); |
| --- | --- |

—

Urban II: Regenerating urban areas in crisis (ERDF);

| — | Leader+: Rural development (EAGGF Guidance); |
| --- | --- |

—

Leader+: Rural development (EAGGF Guidance);

| — | Equal: Fighting discrimination and inequality relating to the labour market (ESF). |
| --- | --- |

—

Equal: Fighting discrimination and inequality relating to the labour market (ESF).

There is a danger that some of these Community Initiatives will be claimed by the Member States, on the understanding that they are domestic policies.

What does the Commission think of the renationalisation of the Community Initiatives, and specifically, Interreg III — Chapter A, on cross-border cooperation?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(23 October 2003)

(23 October 2003)

The Commission will make proposals for cohesion policy for the period after 2006 in the Third Cohesion Report which is scheduled for publication before the end of this year. While it is too early to speculate on the nature of these proposals, they will take account of the contributions to the debate on future cohesion policy that the Commission launched in January 2001 with the publication of the Second Cohesion Report. The Parliament has been fully associated with this debate. The Commission's proposals will also include those regarding the future of the Community Initiatives, taking into account their added value in relation to the interventions supported under the mainstream regional development programmes.

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


<ARTICLE>                     5
           
                

       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-1-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                         1,262,268
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  2,981,129
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (80,000)
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               4,366,209
<PP&E>                                         907,473
<DEPRECIATION>                                 104,274
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 15,393,841
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          3,319,020
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       50,526
<OTHER-SE>                                     0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   15,393,841
<SALES>                                        5,381,146
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               5,381,146
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               5,720,008
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             71,336
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (302,668)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (302,668)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (302,668)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.06)
        


</TABLE>
Exhibit 99.2


                        REPORT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


The Board of Directors of
Saville Systems PLC

We have audited the accompanying  consolidated  balance sheet of Saville Systems
PLC and its subsidiaries as of December 31, 1997, and the related  statements of
income,  changes in  shareholders'  equity  and cash  flows for the years  ended
December 31, 1997 and 1996.  Our audits also included the  financial  statements
schedule listed in the Index at Item 14(a) for the years ended December 31, 1997
and 1996. These financial  statements and schedule are the responsibility of the
Company's  management.  Our  responsibility  is to  express  an opinion on these
financial statements and schedules based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted
in the United States. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit
to obtain reasonable  assurance about whether the financial  statements are free
of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence
supporting  the amounts and  disclosures in the financial  statements.  An audit
also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates
made by  management,  as well as  evaluating  the  overall  financial  statement
presentation.  We believe  that our audits  provide a  reasonable  basis for our
opinion.

In our opinion, the consolidated  financial statements referred to above present
fairly, in all material respects,  the financial position of Saville Systems PLC
and its subsidiaries at December 31, 1997, and the results of its operations and
its cash flows for the years ended  December  31, 1997 and 1996,  in  conformity
with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States. Also, in our
opinion,  the related financial  statement schedule for the years ended December
31, 1997 and 1996, when considered in relation to the basic financial statements
taken as a whole,  presents fairly in all material  respects the information set
forth therein.



/s/Ernst & Young
Ernst & Young
Galway, Ireland
January 22, 1998
(Except for Comprehensive Income and Note 15 as to which the date is 
March 12, 1999)
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                  JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                             37,036
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                           0
<ALLOWANCES>                                            0
<INVENTORY>                                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   37,036
<PP&E>                                                984
<DEPRECIATION>                                        210
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     38,230
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                   0
<BONDS>                                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                            4,334
<OTHER-SE>                                         33,896
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       38,230
<SALES>                                               410
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                      768
<CGS>                                                   0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       1,055
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   19,711
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                      0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (19,998)
<INCOME-TAX>                                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                     0
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (19,998)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      (0.005)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      (0.005)
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1215 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1215

   To prohibit spending Federal education funds on national testing.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 24, 1997

 Mr. Ashcroft introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
         referred to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To prohibit spending Federal education funds on national testing.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON NATIONAL TESTING.

    Part C of the General Education Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1231 et 
seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 447. PROHIBITION ON NATIONAL TESTING.

    ``(a) General Prohibition.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
Federal law, funds provided to the Department or for an applicable 
program may not be used to develop, plan, implement, or administer any 
national testing program.
    ``(b) Exception.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to the following:
            ``(1) The National Assessment of Educational Progress 
        carried out under section 411 of the National Education 
        Statistics Act of 1994 (20 U.S.C. 9010).
            ``(2) The Third International Mathematics and Science Study 
        (TIMSS).''.
                                 <all>
```
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Dairy and Functional Foods Research: Wyndmoor, PA
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    About ERRC
                        Greetings from the Director
                                    Directions/Lodging
                                    History and Accomplishments
                    Our Work
                        Biomass Pyrolysis Research
                                    IPMP 2013
                                    IPMP Dynamic Prediction
                                    IPMP Global Fit
                                    Pathogen Modeling Program (PMP)
                                    Predictive Microbiology Information Portal (PMIP)
                                    PoultryFARMSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Northeast Area Wyndmoor, Pennsylvania Eastern Regional Research Center Dairy and Functional Foods Research People & Locations







Austin  Bryant
                        Dairy and Functional Foods Research

                        




                        
                        Biological Laboratory Technical
                        Phone: (215) 233-6515
                        
                        
                        Fax: (Employee information on this page comes from the REE Directory. Please contact your front office staff to update the REE Directory.)


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
----

(2004/C 78 E/0252)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3279/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(30 October 2003)

Subject:   Quality checks by the Commission on the Clearance Audit Trail System (CATS) database

Knowing that:

In the light of the above, can the Commission indicate:

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(4 December 2003)

The Commission refers the Honourable Member to its answers to his Written Questions E-1477/03 to E-1480/03 (4) and to its answers to his Written Questions E-3113/03 (3) and P-3202/02.

The Honourable Member claims to base the figures in his written question on an answer given to Written Question P-3202/02. Unfortunately, the Honourable Member has not correctly quoted from this answer since he refers e.g. to an amount of EUR 639 421 671,77 instead of the correct figure of EUR 321 711 242,39 which is the total amount of the refunds paid for exports during the period 1998-2001 in the said countries (5). In fact each amount quoted in the written question is inaccurate and can, therefore, not be confirmed by the Commission and it is not certain how and from where the Honourable Member extracted these figures.

The Commission considers that this fact might have an impact on the assessment of the Honourable Member and have an influence on the purpose of his questions.

In light of the above:

----

(1)OJ C 137 E, 12.6.2003, p. 172.

(2)OJ C 70 E, 20.3.2004, p. 45.

(3)  See page 223.

(4)OJ C 70 E, 20.3.2004, p. 45.

(5)  Swiss Confederation, the Principality of Andorra, the Principality of Liechtenstein, the Republic of San Marino and the Vatican State City.

(6)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2390/1999 of 25 October 1999 laying down detailed rules of the application of Regulation (EC) No 1663/95 as regards the form and content of the accounting information that the Member States must hold at the disposal of the Commission for the purposes of the clearance of the EAGGF Guarantee Section accounts, OJ L 295, 16.11.1999. Annexes I, II and III of this Regulation are updated annually.

(7)  ‘Clearance Audit Trail System’.

(8)  Each payment record can contain up to 128 different data fields.

(9)OJ C 110 E, 8.5.2003.

----
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT KEVIN JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. MILTON BOONE, Correctional Officer; RUDOLPH BAILEY, Correctional Officer; TERRENCE JONES, Correctional Officer; MICHAEL LYNCH, Correctional Officer; CHARLEEN ROBINSON, Correctional No. 97-7053 Officer; WILLIAM HEALEY, Correctional Officer, Defendants-Appellees, and C. LONG, Correctional Officer; R. C. JOHNSON, Correctional Officer; HARVEY, Correctional Officer, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. W. Curtis Sewell, Magistrate Judge. (CA-95-101-AM) Submitted: June 9, 1998 Decided: July 1, 1998 Before HAMILTON and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL Kevin Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Collin Jefferson Hite, SANDS, ANDERSON, MARKS & MILLER, Richmond, Virginia; SusanCampbell Alexander, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________ OPINION PER CURIAM: Appellant Kevin Johnson appeals from the jury verdict in favor of Defendants in his action brought under 42 U.S.C.§ 1983 (1994). Johnson claimed that Defendants used excessive force against him in an incident which took place at the correctional center where J ohnson is incarcerated. The case was referred to a magistrate judge for trial, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (1994), and Johnson pro ceeded pro se. Following the jury verdict in favor of Defendants, Johnson moved for aretrial on several grounds, which the magistrate judge denied. Johnson timely appealed. On appeal, Johnson raises the same claims thatwere raised in his motion for a retrial, as well as a claim that the magistrate judge improperly denied his motion for a retrial. Our reviewof the record, the transcripts, and Johnson's brief reveals that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Johnson's motion for a retrial. See Benedi v. McNeil-P.P.C., Inc. , 66 F.3d 1378, 1383 (4th Cir. 1995). Because J ohnson's claims on appeal do not provide a basis for overturning the jury verdict in favor of Defendants, we affirm. We deny Johnson's motions to suspend Local Rule 24 and to grant him 2relief from his in forma pauperis status. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately set out in the materials before the court and oral argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3
M A N D A T E

THE STATE OF TEXAS

TO THE 216TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF GILLESPIE COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas on March 11, 2015, the cause upon appeal to

revise or reverse your judgment between

In the Interest of L.M.D.M., a child, Appellant

V.

No. 04-14-00739-CV and Tr. Ct. No. 13426

was determined, and therein our said Court of Appeals made its order in these words:

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s

judgment is AFFIRMED. We order no costs assessed against appellant because

he is indigent.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals for the Fourth

District of Texas, in this behalf and in all things have the order duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS the Hon. Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of

Texas, with the seal of the Court affixed and the City of San Antonio on November 6, 2015.

KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK

Cynthia A. Martinez

Deputy Clerk, Ext. 53853
BILL OF COSTS

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, FOURTH DISTRICT, AT SAN ANTONIO

No. 04-14-00739-CV

In the Interest of L.M.D.M., a child

v.

(NO. 13426 IN 216TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF GILLESPIE COUNTY)

TYPE OF FEE CHARGES PAID BY

REPORTER'S RECORD

FILING

$3,400.50

$195.00

EXEMPT

INDIGENT

COUNTY OF GILLESPIE

N/A

Balance of costs owing to the Fourth Court of Appeals, San Antonio, Texas: 0.00

Court costs in this cause shall be paid as per the Judgment issued by this Court.

I, KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK OF THE FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF

TEXAS, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true and correct copy of the cost bill of

THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS, showing the charges and

payments, in the above numbered and styled cause, as the same appears of record in this office.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, witness my hand and the Seal of the COURT OF APPEALS for

the Fourth District of Texas, this November 6, 2015.

KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK

Cynthia A. Martinez

Deputy Clerk, Ext. 53853
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.3

Eastern Division

George S. May International Company

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:04−cv−06018

Hon. Charles R. Norgle Sr

Xcentric Vventures, LLC, et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Monday, March 14, 2005:

 MINUTE entry before Judge Charles R. Norgle Sr.:Set deadlines/hearing as to

motion to compel[40] : Responses due by 4/1/2005 Replies due by 4/15/2005. Status

hearing set for 5/31/2005 at 09:30 AM. The briefing schedule previously set on

defendant39;s motion to dismiss is stricken.(ewf, )

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case 1:04-cv-06018 Document 43 Filed 03/14/2005 Page 1 of 1

George S May Intl, et al v. Xcentric Ventures, et al Doc. 4

Dockets.Justia.com
II

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1298

To designate a Federal building located in Florence, Alabama, as the ‘‘Justice

John McKinley Federal Building’’.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER 20, 1997

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

to the Committee on Environment and Public Works

A BILL

To designate a Federal building located in Florence,

Alabama, as the ‘‘Justice John McKinley Federal Building’’.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF JUSTICE JOHN MCKINLEY

4 FEDERAL BUILDING.

5 The Federal building located at 210 North Seminary

6 Street in Florence, Alabama, shall be known and des7 ignated as the ‘‘Justice John McKinley Federal Building’’.

8 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

9 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

10 paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal
2

•S 1298 IS

1 building referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be

2 a reference to the ‘‘Justice John McKinley Federal Build3 ing’’.

Æ