alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.01**CERTIFICATION**I, Bruce L. Cleland, Chief Executive Officer of Campbell & Company, Inc., the managing operator ofThe Campbell Fund Trust. (the “Trust”), do hereby certify that:1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of the Trust;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in lightof the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respectto the period covered by this report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, theperiods presented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter (the Registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or is reasonable likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.       By: /s/ Bruce L. Cleland              Bruce L. Cleland    Chief Executive Officer    March 30, 2007  
 E 2
# Commission Regulation (EU) No 338/2014Show full title

Commission Regulation (EU) No 338/2014 of 28 March 2014 establishing a prohibition of fishing for tusk in Union and international            waters of V, VI and VII by vessels flying the flag of Spain         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Regulation (EU) No 338/2014                     

# of 28 March 2014

# establishing a prohibition of fishing for tusk in Union and international waters of V, VI and VII by vessels flying the flag                        of Spain                     

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring                           compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy(1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Council Regulation (EU) No 43/2014 of 20 January 2014 fixing for 2014 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and                              groups of fish stocks, applicable in Union waters and, to Union vessels, in certain non-Union waters(2), lays down quotas for 2014.

(2)According to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation                              by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for                              2014.

(3)It is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

## Article 1U.K.Quota exhaustion

The fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein                     for 2014 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.                  

## Article 2U.K.Prohibitions

Fishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in                     the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited                     to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.                  

## Article 3U.K.Entry into force

This Regulation shall enter into force on the 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, 28 March 2014.

*For the Commission,*                            

*On behalf of the President,*                            

Lowri Evans                            

*Director-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries*                            

## ANNEXU.K.

1

OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.                           

2

OJ L 24, 28.1.2014, p. 1.
STATE of North Carolina v. Webster Dayton VANN.

No. 524P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 6, 2007.

Webster D. Vann, Pro Se.

Amar Majmundar, Special Deputy Attorney General, Rex Gore, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by Defendant on the 23rd day of October 2007 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30 (substantial constitutional question), the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the notice of appeal is

"Dismissed ex mero motu by order of the Court in conference, this the 6th day of December 2007."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 23rd day of October 2007 by Defendant *30in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 6th day of December 2007."
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 521/2014Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 521/2014 of 16 May 2014 establishing the standard import values for determining            the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 521/2014                     

# of 16 May 2014

# establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural                           markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation)(1),                        

Having regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application                           of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors(2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations,                              the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products                              and periods stipulated in Annex XVI, Part A thereto.

(2)The standard import value is calculated each working day, in accordance with Article 136(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU)                              No 543/2011, taking into account variable daily data. Therefore this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its                              publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

The standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to                     this Regulation.                  

# Article 2U.K.

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day 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, 16 May 2014.

*For the Commission*,                           

*On behalf of the President*,                           

Jerzy Plewa                            

*Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development*                            

## ANNEXU.K.Standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

1

OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.                           

2

OJ L 157, 15.6.2011, p. 1.
SIVITA USA, INC. v. STUTTS.

No. COA07-1509.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed July 15, 2008.

Certification Date August 4, 2008.

Appeal from Harnett (05CVS2308).

Case reported without published opinion. Reversed and remanded.
# C_2023155EN.01003601.xml

| 2.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/36

---

Appeal brought on 20 February 2023 by PNB Banka AS against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 7 December 2022 in Case T-275/19, PNB Banka v ECB

(Case C-99/23 P)

(2023/C 155/47)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: PNB Banka AS (represented by: O. Behrends, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Central Bank (ECB), European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment under appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment under appeal;

| — | declare void the decision of the ECB, notified by letter of 14 February 2019, to conduct an on-site inspection at the appellant’s premises; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare void the decision of the ECB, notified by letter of 14 February 2019, to conduct an on-site inspection at the appellant’s premises;

| — | order the ECB to pay the appellant's costs and the costs of this appeal, and |
| --- | --- |

—

order the ECB to pay the appellant's costs and the costs of this appeal, and

| — | to the extent that the Court of Justice is not in a position to rule on the substance, refer the case back to the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

to the extent that the Court of Justice is not in a position to rule on the substance, refer the case back to the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on a single plea in law alleging that the judgement under appeal is procedurally flawed because the General Court did not deal appropriately with the issue of the representation of the appellant in the context of the procedure in front of the General Court.

The General Court erred when it assumed that an issue with respect to the integrity of the procedure in front of the General Court is not a problem as long as it can be argued that the problem would not exist if, hypothetically, Latvia complied with its obligations. It thereby violated the principle that legal protection must not be merely theoretical and illusory and thereby violated Article 47 of the Charter.

---
STATE v. LYNCH.

No. COA07-512.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed April 1, 2008.

Certification Date April 21, 2008.

Appeal from the Wake (01CRS3370, 01CRS3371, 01CRS1327, 01CRS3376, 01CRS799).

Cases Reported Without Published Opinion. No error.
EX-10.21



 Exhibit 10.21 

SUMMARY OF 2016 CASH INCENTIVE BONUS ARRANGEMENTS 

WITH DENNIS WERTH 
 First Half 2016
Cash Incentive 
 Dennis Werth is entitled to a cash incentive which is tied to the achievement of financial performance goals of (i) Newport
Corporation (which is a subsidiary of MKS Instruments, Inc. (the “Corporation”), which was acquired by the Corporation on April 29, 2016) and all of its subsidiaries (collectively, the “Newport Group”), and (ii) the
Photonics group of the Newport Group, in each case for the period January 1, 2016 through June 30, 2016 (“First Half 2016”).
 The financial
measures are based upon: 
  

	 	•	 	the worldwide operating income for the Newport Group (15%) 

  

	 	•	 	Photonics group operating income after tax (35%) 

  

	 	•	 	Photonics group sales (30%) 

  

	 	•	 	Photonics group cash flow (20%) 

 Mr. Werth’s target cash incentive is set at 60% of his base salary for
the First Half 2016. There are minimum, target and maximum achievement levels (corresponding to payout levels of 50%, 100% and 200%, respectively) for each financial measure. Payouts are prorated on a straight-line basis for achievement
between the minimum and target levels or between the target and maximum levels. If the Newport Group does not exceed the minimum performance level for its measure, no payout would be made for that measure. In addition, the payout for all of the
financial measures is conditioned upon the achievement of at least 90% of the minimum level for Mr. Werth’s Photonics group operating income after tax.

Second Half 2016 Cash Incentive 
 Mr. Werth’s
cash incentive program for the period July 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016 (“Second Half 2016”) with Newport Corporation is substantially similar to the cash incentive program in place for other Executive Officers of the Corporation,
except that: 
  

	 	•	 	Mr. Werth’s program relates to performance during the Second Half 2016 only 

  

	 	•	 	Mr. Werth’s Target Bonus Amount is 75% of his Second Half 2016 eligible earnings 

  

	 	•	 	Mr. Werth’s Financial Performance Objectives is based solely on the operating income targets of the Newport Group for the Second Half 2016
WARD v. ENBODY.

No. COA08-35.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed August 5, 2008.

Certification Date August 25, 2008.

Appeal from Forsyth (07CVD5516).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
#### Amanda S. Ritz, Respondent, v Michael D. Ritz, Appellant.

[799 NYS2d 501]

*268Amended judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan B. Lobis, J.), entered December 3, 2003, inter alia, equitably distributing the parties’ marital property, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, to reduce plaintiffs share of the enhanced value of defendant’s rental apartment, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The apartment was admittedly a separate asset of defendant purchased before the marriage. The IAS court was correct in finding that the enhanced value was marital property as the rent money was deposited in a joint checking account and there was evidence of plaintiffs indirect contributions as a homemaker and mother *(Price v Price,*69 NY2d 8 [1986]). It was also correct in finding that the enhanced value was to be determined from the date of acquisition, not the date of commencement, because the court was only provided with a dollar figure for the former, not the latter (notwithstanding the generous result this gives plaintiff). Furthermore, since defendant produced no evidence as to the amount of increase due to passive market forces as opposed to his direct efforts, we will not disturb the classification that the entire increase was marital property *(Hartog v Hartog, 85*NY2d 36 [1995]). However, and especially in view of this most favorable calculation for plaintiff to determine the marital portion, an award of 50% of the enhanced value is clearly disproportionate. She contributed no money to the operation of the apartment; the rent money, which was merely “parked” in the joint checking account, more than paid for its expenses. Nor did plaintiff directly contribute to the operation or management of the apartment *(cf. Zelnik v Zelnik,*169 AD2d 317 [1991]; *Derderian v Derderian,*167 AD2d 158 [1990], *lv denied*77 NY2d 804 [1991]; *Rider v Rider,*141 AD2d 1004 [1988]). In fact, the record shows plaintiff had no involvement with the apartment whatsoever. Consequently, we reduce plaintiffs share in the enhanced value of the apartment to 25%. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Tom, Saxe, Friedman and Sweeny, JJ.
STATE v. QUIROZ.

No. COA07-585.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed January 15, 2008.

Certification Date February 4, 2008.

Appeal from Guilford (05CRS24535, 05CRS82028).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed December 6, 2011.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals 

____________

NO. 14-10-01106-CR

____________

VALENTINE FACUNDO, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 177th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 0698837

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant was convicted of aggravated sexual assault of a child and sentenced to 

thirty years in prison. This court affirmed his conviction in 1998. See Facundo v. State, 

971 S.W.2d 133 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, pet. ref’d). Appellant appeals 

the trial court’s denial of his motion for DNA testing. 

Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief in which he concludes the appeal is 

wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of 
2

the record and demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See 

High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).

A copy of counsel’s brief was delivered to appellant. Appellant was advised of the 

right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se response. See Stafford v. State, 813 

S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). As of this date, more than forty-five days has 

passed and no pro se response has been filed.

We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief and agree the appeal is 

wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find no reversible error in the record. 

We are not to address the merits of each claim raised in an Anders brief or a pro se response 

when we have determined there are no arguable grounds for review. See Bledsoe v. State, 

178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Brown, Boyce, and McCally.

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
WILKINSON v. WILKINSON

No. COA06-1126

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Filed May 1, 2007

Certification Date May 21, 2007

Appeal from Catawba (03CVD3430).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
STATE v. BRINKLEY.

No. COA07-521.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed March 4, 2008.

Certification Date March 24, 2008.

Appeal from Edgecombe (05CRS54345, 05CRS54347).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
Regis M. BUREK and wife, Lynda G. Burek v. Bernard MANCUSO, Jr. and wife, Frances Mancuso.

No. 153P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 11, 2008.

M.H. Hood Ellis, Elizabeth City, Benjamin M. Gallop, for Mancuso.

David R. Tanis, Winston-Salem, for Burek.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 8th day of April 2008 by Defendants in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 11th day of June 2008."
STATE of North Carolina v. Tony JOHNSON.

No. 210PA06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 29, 2006.

Martin T. McCracken, Charlotte, L. Johnson Britt, III, District Attorney, for State of NC.

C. Scott Holmes, Durham, for Tony Johnson.

Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ___, 627 S.E.2d 488.

**ORDER**

Upon consideration of the petition filed by the Attorney General on the 21st day of April 2006 for Writ of Supersedeas of the judgment of the Court of Appeals, the following *890order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 29th day of June 2006."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 21st day of April 2006 by the Attorney General in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"The Attorney General's Petition for Discretionary Review is allowed for the limited purpose of entering this order. That portion of the opinion of the Court of Appeals concerning the question of probable cause is hereby vacated. This case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for further remand to the trial court for findings of fact and conclusions of law on the question of probable cause. By order of the Court in conference, this the 29th day of June 2006."
STATE v. SINGLETON.

No. COA07-726.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed April 1, 2008.

Certification Date April 21, 2008.

Appeal from the Guilford (06CRS24228, 06CRS70333, 06CRS70334).

Cases Reported Without Published Opinion. No error.
KUCAN v. ADVANCE AMERICA, et al.

No. 464P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 11, 2007.

Carlene McNulty, F. Paul Bland, Jr., Mallam J. Maynard, Mona Lisa Wallace, Salisbury, John Hughes, Greensboro, Richard A. Fisher, for Hager and Hall.

Saul M. Pilchen, Washington, DC, Johnny M. Loper, Raleigh, John Coble, Wilmington, for Advance America, et al.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 31st day of August 2006 by Plaintiffs to Consolidate:

"Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference this the 11th day of October 2007."
<PAGE>
 
                                 EXHIBIT 23.3
                                        
                  Consent of Lamn, Krielow, Dytrych & Darling

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement of
Westower Corporation on Form S-8 (Registration No. 3333-65337) of our report
dated February 11, 1998, except for Note 4, as to which the date is August 12,
1998, relating to the financial statements of MJA Communications Corp. appearing
in the Amendment No. 2 on Form 10-KSB/A to the Transition Report on Form 10-KSB
dated January 25, 1999, of Westower Corporation.

/s/ LAMN, KRIELOW, DYTRYCH & DARLING
Certified Public Accountants

February 8, 1998
Alfred ABDO, Jr. and Abdo Demolition & Property Restoration v. M.B. KAHN CONSTRUCTION CO., St. Paul Surety and St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co.

No. 34A08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 6, 2008.

Alfred Abdo, Jr., Pro Se.

G. Gray Wilson, Winston-Salem, J. Chad Bomar, for Kahn Construction, et al.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by the Plaintiffs on the 22nd day of January 2008 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30, and the motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question filed by the Defendants, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals; the motion to dismiss the appeal is

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 6th day of March 2008."