alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.14.3

Amendment No. 5 (the "Amendment") To
Employment Agreement (the "Employment Agreement") between
C. Douglas Kranwinkle ("Employee") and Univison Management Co. ("Company")

Employee
and Company agree to amend the Employment Agreement as follows:

1.Term. The Term of the Employment Agreement is extended through December 31, 2006, unless earlier terminated in
accordance with the provisions of the Employment Agreement.

2.Salary. The annual Base Salary rate will be: Six Hundred Thousand Dollars ($600,000) for the annual period from
January 1, 2006 through December 31, 2006.

3.Effective Date of Amendment. Upon execution by Employee and Company, this Amendment will become effective as of
January 1, 2004.

4.Other. Except as provided in this Amendment, all other terms and conditions in the Employment Agreement will remain in
full force and effect, and the Employment Agreement, as amended hereby, is ratified and confirmed.

|                                              |  | UNIVISION MANAGEMENT CO.
|--------------------------------------------- |  | ------------------------
|                                              |  | By:                     
|/s/C. DOUGLAS KRANWINKLEC. Douglas Kranwinkle |  |                         

---

QuickLinks
#### James L. Kapsis, Appellant, v Michael S. Peragine et al., Respondents.

[946 NYS2d 234]

—In an action to recover damages for defamation, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Brandveen, J.), entered December 16, 2009, which, upon an order of the same court entered July 13, 2009, inter alia, denying the plaintiffs motion, among other things, to vacate two prior defaults and for recusal, is in favor of the defendants and against him.

Motion by the respondents, inter alia, to dismiss the appeal from the judgment on the ground that certain issues raised on the appeal are barred by the doctrine of *Bray v Cox*(38 NY2d 350 [1976]). By decision and order on motion of this Court dated August 17, 2011, inter alia, that branch of the motion which is to dismiss the appeal on the ground that certain issues raised on the appeal are barred by the doctrine of *Bray v Cox*(38 NY2d 350 [1976]) was held in abeyance and referred to the panel of *805Justices hearing the appeal for determination upon the argument or submission thereof.

Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, and upon the submission of the appeal, it is

Ordered that the branch of the motion which is to dismiss the appeal from the judgment on the ground that certain issues raised on the appeal are barred by the doctrine of *Bray v Cox*(38 NY2d 350 [1976]) is granted; and it is further,

Ordered that the appeal from the judgment entered December 16, 2009, is dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the defendants.

As a general rule, we do not consider an issue on a subsequent appeal which was raised or could have been raised in an earlier appeal which was dismissed for lack of prosecution, although this Court has the inherent jurisdiction to do so *(see Rubeo v National Grange Mut. Ins. Co.,*93 NY2d 750 [1999]; *Bray v Cox,*38 NY2d 350 [1976]; *Blue Chip Mtge. Corp. v Strumpf,*50 AD3d 936, 937 [2008]; *S.K. Mtge. Holdings Ltd. Partnership v Subirats,*28 AD3d 460, 461 [2006]). The plaintiff previously appealed from an order entered July 13, 2009, which denied his motion, inter alia, to vacate two prior defaults and for recusal, but that appeal was dismissed by decision and order on motion of this Court dated August 4, 2010, for failure to prosecute *(see*22 NYCRR 670.8 [e]). Under the circumstances of this case, we decline to exercise our discretion to determine the merits of the instant appeal from the judgment entered December 16, 2009, as the issues raised by the plaintiff could have been raised on the prior appeal from the order entered July 13, 2009 *(see Deller v Mercy Med. Ctr.,*87 AD3d 712, 713 [2011]; *Gurman v Fotiades,*73 AD3d 1126, 1127 [2010]).

We decline the defendants’ request for the imposition of sanctions against the plaintiff based upon allegedly frivolous conduct on this appeal *(see*22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [a], [c]; *see also Grossman v New York Life Ins. Co.,*90 AD3d 990, 992 [2011]; *Barns & Farms Realty, LLC v Novelli,*82 AD3d 689, 691 [2011]). Florio, J.P., Eng, Lott and Miller, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>   1




                                                                    EXHIBIT 99


TO THE STOCKHOLDERS OF
KIDDIE ACADEMY INTERNATIONAL, INC.:


          This is to notify you, as required by Section 228(d) of the Delaware
General Corporation Law, that written consents of the holders of a majority of
the issued and outstanding stock of the Company were delivered to the Company
on Friday, May 30, 1997, at 3:15 p.m., taking the following actions of the
stockholders without a meeting:

          1.   Repeal of any bylaws that may have been adopted by the Board of
Directors of the Company since the version of the Amended and Restated Bylaws
(the "Bylaws") filed with the Company's SEC Form 10-KSB for the period ending
September 30, 1996.

          2.   Amendment of the Bylaws to increase the size of the Board of
Directors of the Company from six to nine.

          3.   Election of Pauline J. Miller, Diane Amato and Gary Miller,
CPA, as directors to fill the vacancies resulting from the increase of the
size of the Board.

          4.   Repeal of Section 2.9 of the Company's Bylaws requiring the
vote of the holders of two-thirds of the shares to remove a director.

          5.   Removal of Angelo D. Bizzarro and Carl J. Meil, Jr., as
Directors of the Company.

          6.   Election of Glenn J. Brainer and Larry V. Fila as Directors to
fill the vacancies created by the removal of Messrs. Bizzarro and Meil.  The
appointment of these directors is subject to the approval of Barington Capital
Group, L.P. (the "Underwriter") pursuant to the terms of an Underwriting
Agreement between the Company and the Underwriter dated December 12, 1995.

          The Bylaw amendments and repeals were adopted pursuant to the
authority granted in Article VII of the Company's Bylaws, which permits the
holders of a majority of the shares of the Company entitled to vote for
directors to adopt, amend or repeal the Bylaws of the Company.

          Any questions concerning the foregoing actions should be directed to
John J. Ghingher, III, Weinberg & Green LLC, counsel to the Company at 100
South Charles Street, Suite 1500, Baltimore, Maryland 21201 or by telephone at
(410) 332-8748.


                                   Michael J. Miller,
                                   President and Secretary
#### Ex *parte*Sudduth.

Petition for Mandamus.

Francis M. Purifoy, for petitioner.

Wess Sudduth. filed a petition addressed to the judges of the Supreme Court asking for the issuance of a writ of mandamus, commanding the judge of the county court of Tuscaloosa, to vaiMte and set aside a judgment of conviction rendered by him in the case of *The State of Alabama v. Wess Sudduth.*The exhibits *to*the *petition*show that the facts relied on by the petitioner are in direct contradiction to the records of the county court, and rest *in pais.*

The court holds that the record alone can be looked to, and the record in this case showing no ground for the writ of *mandamus,*

the prayer is denied and the petition dismissed.

Opinion by

McClellan, C. J.
#### Becker *et al.*v. Puels.

*(City Court of Brooklyn, General Term.*

May 26, 1890.)

Appeal—Review—Harmless Error.

In an action for the contract price of bronze-gilt mouldings, the court charged that, if plaintiffs agreed to furnish such mouldings, and did furnish them, they were entitled to recover; but if, as claimed by defendant, the contract called for silver-gilt mouldings, then defendant was entitled to a verdict. *Held,*that this submission of the conflicting contentions was more favorable to defendant than if his counter-claim for a supposed breach of warranty had been submitted; for the charge made a breach of warranty a defense to the whole claim, while the counter-claim went only to a part of the claim.

Appeal from trial term.

Action by Lambert Becker and others against Joseph H. Fuels. There was a judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals.

Argued before Clement, C. J.', and Van Wyck, J.

*Thornton, Earle & Kiende,*for appellant. *John H. Kuhn,*for respondents.

Van Wyck, J.

The court charged the jury that, if the contract between; the parties was that plaintiffs should furnish bronze-gilt mouldings which would not tarnish or turn black, and if they furnished such mouldings, then, the plaintiffs were entitled to recover $121.71; on the other hand, if the contract was that plaintiffs should furnish silver-gilt mouldings which would not' tarnish or turn black, that then defendant was entitled to a verdict. To this submission to the jury of these two contentions there was no exception, and there was testimony tending to sustain both. The jury on this conflict, decided in favor of the first contention, viz., that the contract was to furnish-bronze-gilt mouldings which would not tarnish or turn black, and that such. *100mouldings were furnished. After a careful examination of all the testimony in the case, we see no reason to disturb their decision. The submission of these two conflicting contentions to the jury was more favorable to the defendant than if the counter-claim on a supposed breach of warranty had been submitted; for the former made a breach of warranty a defense to the whole claim, whereas the latter made a breach of warranty a defense to a part of the claim. There is no other exception in the case upon which error can be predicated. Judgment and order denying motion for a new trial must be affirmed, with costs.
E X P E R I E N C E Y O U R A M E R I C A

Native Fish Population Trends –

Grand Canyon Tributaries

Razorback Sucker: Status and 

Habitat Use

Brian Healy, Emily Omana Smith, Clay Nelson, Melissa Trammel, Mark 

Mckinstry, Brandon Albrecht, Ron Kegerries

National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Grand Canyon National Park

Joe Tomelleri Illustrations
E X P E R I E N C E Y O U R A M E R I C A

Cooperators

•Funded by Reclamation and NPS

•Volunteers (several thousand hours)
Native Fish Monitoring 

E X P E R I E N C E Y O U R A M E R I C A

Shinumo Creek –

• Humpback Chub 

Translocations (netting)

• Rainbow Trout Control

 (electro-fishing)

Havasu Creek –

• Humpback Chub 

Translocations (netting)

• Data analysis incomplete
Shinumo Creek – Background

 Non-native Trout Control Uncertainties:

 Electro-fishing impact upon native fish/humpback chub?

 Effectiveness?

 Methods - Timeline:

 2009: 

 Pre-translocation electro-fishing 

 No population estimates

 2010 -Present:

 Electro-fishing - Multiple pass depletion

 Upstream of translocation areas

 Netting - Mark-recapture population estimates

 Translocation areas
Shinumo Creek - Results

 Bluehead Sucker – Upstream of Translocation Areas

E X P E R I E N C E Y O U R A M E R I C A

* *

* = No Data/No Sample
Shinumo Creek - Results

 Bluehead Sucker – Within Translocation Areas

E X P E R I E N C E Y O U R A M E R I C A

* *

* = No Data/No Sample
Shinumo Creek - Results

 Bluehead Sucker – Length-Frequency

 Increased recruitment since 2012

E X P E R I E N C E Y O U R A M E R I C A
Shinumo Creek - Results

 Speckled Dace – Upstream of Translocation Areas

E X P E R I E N C E Y O U R A M E R I C A

* *

* = No Data/No Sample
Shinumo Creek - Results

 Speckled Dace – Within Translocation Areas

E X P E R I E N C E Y O U R A M E R I C A * = No Data/No Sample

* * *
E X P E R I E N C E Y O U R A M E R I C A

 Control methods or translocations don’t appear to be 

impacting natives significantly:

 Stable native fish populations

 Increased numbers of young-of-year 2012-2013

 Next Steps

 Shinumo Creek:

 Complete bluehead sucker survival analysis

 Continue trout control, translocations, monitoring

 Havasu Creek:

 Bluehead sucker survival and abundance analyses

Summary – Tributary Monitoring
Razorback Sucker – Lower Grand 

Canyon (LGC)

Objectives

1. Determine:

 Reproduction, spawning, 

and nursery areas

2. Determine RBS presence 

and habitat use in LGC

3. Determine population 

trends in LGC and 

Colorado River Inflow of 

Lake Mead
Razorback Sucker – Lower Grand 

Canyon (LGC)

2014 Activities: 

• Up to 7 trips in the LGC through October 2014 (monthly)

• March: Release 10 sonic-tagged razorback – below Lava 

Falls (downstream of River Mile 180) 

• Install Sonic Receivers from Lava Falls to Diamond Creek

• Larval fish sampling from Lava falls downstream to Lake 

Mead

• Continue RBS monitoring at the Colorado River Inflow

Work conducted by Bio-West and ASIR (contractors), 

logistics supported by NPS/Reclamation 
E X P E R I E N C E Y O U R A M E R I C A

Questions?
KELL, ALTERMAN & RUNSTEIN, L.L.P.

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

520 SW YAMHILL, SUITE 600 

PORTLAND, OR 97204 

TELEPHONE (503) 222-3531 

FACSIMILE (503) 227-2980 

PLAINTIFF’S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO EXTEND 

DISCOVERY DEADLINE AND CORRESPONDING PRETRIAL 

DEADLINES Page 1

Thomas R. Rask, III, OSB No. 934031 

trask@kelrun.com 

Robert B. Lowry, OSB No. 852751 

rlowry@kelrun.com 

Kell, Alterman & Runstein, L.L.P. 

520 SW Yamhill St., Suite 600 

Portland, OR 97204-1329 

Telephone: 503/222-3531 

Fax: 503/227-2980 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

PORTLAND DIVISION 

CONSUMER CELLULAR, 

INCORPORATED, an Oregon corporation,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CONSUMERAFFAIRS.COM, INC., a 

Nevada corporation; CONSUMERS 

UNIFIED, LLC, a Nevada limited liability 

company; and DAVID ZACHARY 

CARMAN,

Defendants. 

Case No.: 3:15-cv-01908-PK

PLAINTIFF’S UNOPPOSED 

MOTION TO EXTEND 

DISCOVERY DEADLINE AND 

CORRESPONDING PRETRIAL 

DEADLINES 

CERTIFICTE OF COMPLIANCE 

Pursuant to Local Rule 7-1, Plaintiff submits this unopposed motion to extend the 

discovery deadline and corresponding pretrial deadlines. The undersigned counsel for 

Case 3:15-cv-01908-PK Document 29 Filed 02/05/16 Page 1 of 3
KELL, ALTERMAN & RUNSTEIN, L.L.P.

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

520 SW YAMHILL, SUITE 600 

PORTLAND, OR 97204 

TELEPHONE (503) 222-3531 

FACSIMILE (503) 227-2980 

PLAINTIFF’S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO EXTEND 

DISCOVERY DEADLINE AND CORRESPONDING PRETRIAL 

DEADLINES Page 2

Plaintiff certifies that he has conferred with Defendants’ counsel, Duane Bosworth, who does 

not oppose and concurs with this motion, including the reasons and dates stated herein. 

MOTION 

Plaintiff moves for an extension of all case management deadlines, including the 

following: 

Deadline Current Proposed 

Discovery February 8, 2016 June 7, 2016 (120 days) 

Dispositive Motions February 8, 2016 July 22, 2016 

Joint ADR Report March 7, 2016 July 22, 2016 

Pretrial Order March 7, 2016 30 days after ruling on 

dispositive motions 

ARGUMENT

There have previously been no time extensions of case management deadlines in this 

case. A Rule 16 conference has not been held while a special motion to strike remains 

pending. 

This motion complies with Local Rule 16-3. There is good cause for the deadlines to 

be modified while the special motion to strike is pending. No trial date has been set. 

This motion is made in good faith, not for the purpose of delay, and is supported by 

the record on file herein and the attached Declaration of Robert B. Lowry. 

Case 3:15-cv-01908-PK Document 29 Filed 02/05/16 Page 2 of 3
KELL, ALTERMAN & RUNSTEIN, L.L.P.

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

520 SW YAMHILL, SUITE 600 

PORTLAND, OR 97204 

TELEPHONE (503) 222-3531 

FACSIMILE (503) 227-2980 

PLAINTIFF’S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO EXTEND 

DISCOVERY DEADLINE AND CORRESPONDING PRETRIAL 

DEADLINES Page 3

DATED this 5th day of February, 2016. 

s/Robert B. Lowry 

THOMAS R. RASK, III 

OSB No. 934031 

ROBERT B. LOWRY 

OSB No. 852751 

503/222-3531 

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Case 3:15-cv-01908-PK Document 29 Filed 02/05/16 Page 3 of 3
#### KAPLAN v. NEW YORK BISCUIT CO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

December 22, 1896.)

Action by Simon Kaplan against the New York Biscuit Company.

No opinion. Motion to resettle order granted.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-2508

OLLYE TINE SNOW REYNOLDS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

FREDERICK COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS; FREDERICK

COMMUNITY COLLEGE; CHARLES COUNTY PUBLIC

SCHOOLS; CALVERT COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS; MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS; ST. MARY’S

COUNTY MARYLAND PUBLIC SCHOOLS; BALTIMORE

COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge.

(CA-98-1285-WMN)

Submitted: March 30, 1999 Decided: April 27, 1999

Before WILKINS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ollye Tine Snow Reynolds, Appellant Pro Se. John S. Vander Woude,

Heather Shanan O’Connor, ECCLESTON & WOLF, Baltimore, Maryland;

Robert Lewis Duston, SCHMELTZER, APTAKER & SHEPARD, P.C., Washington, D.C.; Leslie Robert Stellman, BLUM, YUMKAS, MAILMAN, GUTMAN

& DENICK, P.A., Baltimore, Maryland; Patrick Milton Pilachowski,
2

William J. Rosenthal, SHAWE & ROSENTHAL, Baltimore, Maryland;

George W. Johnston, VENABLE, BAETJER & HOWARD, Baltimore, Maryland;

David Reese Warner, VENABLE, BAETJER & HOWARD, Rockville, Maryland;

Sheldon Lewis Gnatt, MARCELL, SOLOMON & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Greenbelt, Maryland; J. Paul Mullen, Kathleen M. Bustraan, LORD & WHIP,

P.A., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Ollye Tine Snow Reynolds appeals the district court’s orders

dismissing this action for failure to state a claim and denying her

motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the

district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Reynolds v.

Frederick County Pub. Schs., No. CA-98-1285-WMN (D. Md. Sept. 11

and Oct. 5, 1998). We deny the motion to have EEOC files added to

the record and 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.

AFFIRMED
#### BRYER v. FOERSTER.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

June, 1896.)

Action by Peter' Bryer against Catherine Foerster, administratrix.

No opinion. Motion denied. See 41 N. Y. Supp. 617.
II

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2223

To provide a moratorium on certain class actions relating to the Real Estate

Settlement Procedures Act of 1974.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 25, 1998

Mr. GRAMS (for himself, Mr. FAIRCLOTH, Mr. BRYAN, Mr. THURMOND, Mr.

BREAUX, Mr. ALLARD, Mr. AKAKA, Mr. BROWNBACK, Mr. INOUYE, Mr.

DOMENICI, Mr. REID, Mr. GREGG, Mr. ASHCROFT, Mr. BENNETT, Mr.

MACK, Mr. MCCAIN, and Mr. ENZI) introduced the following bill; which

was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To provide a moratorium on certain class actions relating

to the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974.

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 ‘‘Mortgage Litigation

5 Reform Act of 1998’’.

6 SEC. 2. MORATORIUM.

7 Section 16 of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures

8 Act of 1974 (12 U.S.C. 2614) is amended—
2

•S 2223 IS

1 (1) by inserting ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—’’ after

2 ‘‘SEC. 16.’’; and

3 (2) by adding at the end the following new sub4 section:

5 ‘‘(b) CLASS ACTION MORATORIUM.—

6 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—During the period begin7 ning on the date of enactment of the Mortgage Liti8 gation Reform Act of 1998 and ending on July 1,

9 1999, in any State or Federal civil action arising

10 under this Act in which it is alleged that a payment

11 of a thing of value was made by a lender to another

12 lender or to a mortgage broker—

13 ‘‘(A) no party shall serve or cause to be

14 served, or be required to respond to, any discov15 ery concerning any class certification issue;

16 ‘‘(B) no Federal or State court may enter

17 any order—

18 ‘‘(i) certifying any class, other than

19 an order certifying any class directly in

20 connection with the settlement and com21 promise of any action; or

22 ‘‘(ii) imposing any sanction on any

23 party for failing to comply with any discov24 ery seeking information concerning any

25 class certification issue; and
3

•S 2223 IS

1 ‘‘(C) all Federal and State courts shall

2 stay all further proceedings in any such action

3 in which an order certifying any class has been

4 entered on or after January 1, 1998, for any

5 purpose other than indirect connection with the

6 settlement and compromise of any such action.

7 ‘‘(2) NO EFFECT ON OTHER ACTIONS.—Noth8 ing in this subsection shall be construed to limit or

9 affect any civil action arising under this Act that is

10 not brought by or on behalf of a class.’’.

Æ
#### Burrell *v.*The State.

Appeal from Hale County Court.

Tried before the Hon. W. C. Christian.

No counsel marked as appearing for appellant.

Chas. G. Brown, Attorney-General, for the State.

The appellant was prosecuted, tried and convicted for gaming.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Opinion by

Dowdell. J.
# L_2009281EN.01000601.xml

| 28.10.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 281/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.10.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 281/6

---

COUNCIL COMMON POSITION 2009/787/CFSP

of 27 October 2009

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 27 October 2008, the Council adopted Common Position 2008/822/CFSP concerning the temporary reception by Member States of the European Union of certain Palestinians (1), which provided for an extension of the validity of their national permits for entry into, and stay in, the territory of the Member States referred to in Common Position 2002/400/CFSP (2) for a further period of 12 months. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 27 October 2008, the Council adopted Common Position 2008/822/CFSP concerning the temporary reception by Member States of the European Union of certain Palestinians (1), which provided for an extension of the validity of their national permits for entry into, and stay in, the territory of the Member States referred to in Common Position 2002/400/CFSP (2) for a further period of 12 months.

| (2) | On the basis of an evaluation of the application of Common Position 2002/400/CFSP, the Council considers it appropriate that the validity of those permits be extended for a further period of 12 months, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

On the basis of an evaluation of the application of Common Position 2002/400/CFSP, the Council considers it appropriate that the validity of those permits be extended for a further period of 12 months,

HAS ADOPTED THIS COMMON POSITION:

Article 1

The Member States referred to in Article 2 of Common Position 2002/400/CFSP shall extend the validity of the national permits for entry and stay granted pursuant to Article 3 of that Common Position for a further period of 12 months.

Article 2

The Council shall evaluate the application of Common Position 2002/400/CFSP within six months of the adoption of this Common Position.

Article 3

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

Article 4

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

Done at Luxembourg, 27 October 2009.

For the Council

The President

C. BILDT

---

(1)  
  OJ L 285, 29.10.2008, p. 21.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 138, 28.5.2002, p. 33.

2

---