alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
STATE of North Carolina v. Luprise Davon LINCOLN.

No. 373A07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 11, 2007.

Daniel Pollitt, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Luprise Davon Lincoln.

Daniel O'Brien, Assistant Attorney General, C. Colon Willoughby, Jr., District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by the Appellant on the 1st day of August 2007 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 Attorney General, 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 11th day of October 2007."
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3683 

To amend the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act to require approval 

by the Congress for certain expenditures for the Troubled Asset Relief 

Program. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 17 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 17), 2008 

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

to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act to 

require approval by the Congress for certain expenditures 

for the Troubled Asset Relief Program. 

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

3 SECTION 1. APPROVAL REQUIRED FOR TARP OBLIGA4 TIONS. 

5 Section 115 of the Emergency Economic Stabilization 

6 Act (Public Law 110–343) is amended— 

7 (1) in subsection (a)(3)— 

8 (A) by striking ‘‘unless there is enacted, 

9 within 15 calendar days of’’ and inserting 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
2 

•S 3683 IS

1 ‘‘until there is enacted, not later than 15 cal2 endar days after’’; and 

3 (B) by striking ‘‘, effective upon the expi4 ration of such 15-day period,’’; and 

5 (2) in subsection (c)— 

6 (A) in the subsection heading, by striking 

7 ‘‘DISAPPROVAL’’ and inserting ‘‘APPROVAL’’; 

8 and 

9 (B) in paragraph (1)— 

10 (i) by striking ‘‘in excess of 

11 $350,000,000,000 previously obligated’’ 

12 and inserting the following: ‘‘authorized 

13 under paragraph (1), (2), or (3), of sub14 section (a) that is not obligated, as of No15 vember 14, 2008,’’ and 

16 (ii) by striking ‘‘disapproving’’ and in17 serting ‘‘approving’’; 

18 (C) in paragraph (2)(C), by striking ‘‘dis19 approval’’ and inserting ‘‘approval’’; and 

20 (D) in paragraph (2)(D), by striking ‘‘dis21 approves’’ and inserting ‘‘approves’’. 

Æ 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
In the Matter of K.H., A Minor Juvenile. Appealed by Cumberland County DSS and GAL.

No. 186P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 26, 2008.

Elizabeth Kennedy-Gurnee, Fayetteville, for Cumberland County DSS.

Beth A. Hall, Attorney Advocate, for Guardian ad Litem.

Terry F. Rose, Smithfield, for Stacey Means.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Petitioners (Cumberland County DSS & GAL) on the 22nd day of April 2008 for Writ of Supersedeas of the judgment of the Court of Appeals, 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 26th day of August 2008."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 22nd day of April 2008 by Petitioners (Cumberland County DSS & GAL) 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 26th day of August 2008."
STATE v. GOMEZ.

No. COA08-13.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed October 21, 2008.

Certification Date November 10, 2008.

Appeal from Mecklenburg (04CRS256356, 04CRS257975).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
STATE of North Carolina v. Justin Raynal COTTON.

No. 344P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 26, 2008.

Bruce T. Cunningham, Jr., Southern Pines, for Cotton.

Robert Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, Garland N. Yates, District Attorney, for State.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 22nd day of July 2008 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Moore County, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court of that County:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 26th day of August 2008."
Andrea GREGORY, Employee, v. W.A. BROWN & SONS, Employer, PMA Insurance Group, Carrier.

No. 447A08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 11, 2008.

Neil P. Andrews, Charlotte, for W.A. Brown.

William D. Acton, Jr., Charlotte, for Gregory.

Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ___, 664 S.E.2d 589.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendants on the 23rd day of September 2008 for Writ of Supersedeas of the judgment of the Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 11th day of December 2008."

Upon consideration of the petition for discretionary review, filed by Defendants on the 23rd day of September 2008 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 and the Appellate Rule 16(b) as to issues in addition to those presented as the basis for the dissenting opinion in the Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the petition for discretionary review as to additional issues is

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 11th day of December 2008."

Defendants shall forthwith submit an appeal bond to this Court, as provided by Appellate Rule 17(b). The bond may be in cash or by a written undertaking with good and sufficient surety in the sum of $250.00.

Accordingly, only those issues which are the basis of the dissenting opinion in the Court of Appeals shall be presented to this Court in briefs. The Defendants' new brief so limited in scope shall be filed with this Court not more that 30 days from the date of certification of this order.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.3

                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

To the Directors of
Fina Europe N.V.:

     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
of PetroFina S.A. on Form F-3 (File No. 333-49315) of our report dated March 22,
1999, appearing in the Annual Report on Form 20-F of PetroFina S.A. for the year
ended December 31, 1999, relating to the balance sheet of Fina Europe N.V. as of
December 31, 1998 and 1997 and the related statements of income, comprehensive
income, shareholders' equity and cash flows for each of the two years ended
December 31, 1998.

Klynveld Peat Marwick Goerdeler Reviseurs d'Entreprises
Represented by:

/s/  L. RUYSEN
---------------------------------------------------------
L. Ruysen

July 3, 2000

                                       E-4
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, J r. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,

J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk January 29, 2010

p0125 

# Order

January 29, 2010

139937 & (98)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 139937 COA: 272369 Wayne CC: 06-004272-01 ROOSEVELT THEODORE WATTS, JR., Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal th e October 15, 2009 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. The motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED.
# C_2023127EN.01005701.xml

| 11.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 127/57 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 127/57

---

Action brought on 23 February 2023 — Atomico Investment v EUIPO — Gomes Tominaga (atomic fund)

(Case T-98/23)

(2023/C 127/70)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Atomico Investment Holdings Limited (Road Town, British Virgin Islands) (represented by: S. Malynicz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Augusto Gomes Tominaga (Amsterdam, Netherlands)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark atomic fund — Application for registration No 17 796 781

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 December 2022 in Case R 324/2022-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and the other party, if it takes part in these proceedings, to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the other party, if it takes part in these proceedings, to pay the costs.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION

            Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned hereby certifies in his capacity as an officer of LSB Financial Corp. (the "Registrant") that the QuarterlyReport of the Registrant of Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the informationcontained in such report fairly present, in all material respects, the consolidated financial condition of the Registrant at the end of such period and the results of operations of the Registrant forsuch period.

| Date November 13, 2003      |  | /S/RANDOLPH F. WILLIAMSRandolph F. WilliamsPresident and Chief Executive Officer |
|------------------------------------------------------|--|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Date November 13, 2003      |  | /S/MARY JO DAVIDMary Jo DavidVice President and Chief Financial Officer          |
STATE v. MARTIN.

No. COA07-1471.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed November 18, 2008.

Certification Date December 8, 2008.

Appeal from Rutherford (05CRS52602, 05CRS52603, 05CRS52604).

Case reported without published opinion. New trial.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5

<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                                          <C>

<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         6,349,019
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  5,290,755
<ALLOWANCES>                                   125,000
<INVENTORY>                                    12,728,940
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               25,605,897
<PP&E>                                         1,146,623
<DEPRECIATION>                                 484,039
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 26,323,346
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          13,723,043
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       45,448
<OTHER-SE>                                     12,554,855
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   26,323,346
<SALES>                                        42,923,460
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               42,923,460
<CGS>                                          31,124,402
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  7,909,522
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                3,953,792
<INCOME-TAX>                                   1,470,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            2,483,792
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   2,483,792
<EPS-BASIC>                                  0.58
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.53



</TABLE>
# Council Decision 2014/183/CFSPShow full title

Council Decision 2014/183/CFSP of 1 April 2014 on the launch of a European Union military operation in the Central African            Republic (EUFOR RCA)         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Council Decision 2014/183/CFSP                     

# of 1 April 2014

# on the launch of a European Union military operation in the Central African Republic (EUFOR RCA)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Articles 42(4) and 43(2) thereof,

Having regard to Council Decision 2014/73/CFSP of 10 February 2014 on a European Union military operation in the Central African                           Republic (EUFOR RCA)(1), and in particular Article 4 thereof,                        

Having regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,

Whereas:

(1)On 10 February 2014, the Council adopted Decision 2014/73/CFSP.

(2)On 17 March 2014, the Council approved the Operation Plan and the Rules of Engagement of EUFOR RCA.

(3)Following the recommendation of the EU Operation Commander, EUFOR RCA should be launched.

(4)In accordance with Article 5 of the Protocol (No 22) on the position of Denmark annexed to the Treaty on European Union and                              to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Denmark does not participate in the elaboration and implementation                              of decisions and actions of the Union which have defence implications. Consequently, Denmark is not participating in the adoption                              of this Decision, and is neither bound by it nor subject to its application,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

# Article 1U.K.

The EU military operation in the Central African Republic (‘EUFOR RCA’) shall be launched.

# Article 2U.K.

The EU Operation Commander of EUFOR RCA is hereby authorised with immediate effect to start execution of the operation.

# Article 3U.K.

This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.

Done at Brussels, 1 April 2014.

*For the Council*                            

*The President*                            

D. Kourkoulas                            

1

OJ L 40, 11.2.2014, p. 59.
# CE2004088EN.01034201.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/342 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/342

---

(2004/C 88 E/0348)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1209/03

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(2 April 2003)

Subject:   Distribution of infant milk in African countries

Subject:

While the World Health Organisation (WHO) advises against the advertising of milk powder for babies in order to promote breastfeeding, companies producing milk and manufacturing infant milk powder, for example Nestlé and Danone, have infringed WHO guidelines, arguing that they are seeking to reduce child mortality and are distributing milk powder and other items to pregnant women, for example stethoscopes, free of charge. In the accompanying advertising material they maintain that their milk is comparable to breast milk.

Given that such actions infringe WHO guidelines regarding the promotion of breastfeeding and given the European interests in these companies, what action will the Commission take in response to this situation?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(21 May 2003)

(21 May 2003)

The Commission fully supports the International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk substitutes, which was adopted by the World Health Assembly in 1981. The Commission is aware and concerned that there are still baby food companies that do not adhere to the Code and governments which have not implemented its provisions. The Commission will continue to encourage the compliance of the private sector, and particularly the companies, mentioned by the Honourable Member, with the International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk substitutes in the context of the European Union Corporate Social Responsibility Stakeholders Forum and associated dialogues and partnerships.

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

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM EDISON
MISSION ENERGY AND SUBSIDIARIES FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                         832,720
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  487,961
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,126
<INVENTORY>                                    294,323
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,976,565
<PP&E>                                      10,347,046
<DEPRECIATION>                                 632,376
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              14,479,282
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,928,812
<BONDS>                                      6,533,053
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          311,680
<PREFERRED>                                    118,054
<COMMON>                                        64,130
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,872,977
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                14,479,282
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,313,562
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,413,463
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             555,815
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                253,288
<INCOME-TAX>                                   110,692
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            142,596
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                       17,690
<NET-INCOME>                                   160,286
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
Assignment and Assumption of Rights under Shopping Center Purchase Agreement



  
 Exhibit 10.8

 ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION OF RIGHTS UNDER  

SHOPPING CENTER PURCHAE AGREEMENT 
 For good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which is hereby acknowledged, PHILLIPS EDISON GROUP LLC, an Ohio limited liability company (“Assignor”), hereby assigns,
transfers and sets over to SNOW VIEW STATION LLC (“Assignee”), all of Assignor’s right, title, and interest as Purchaser in and to that certain Shopping Center Purchase Agreement dated August 26, 2010, as amended
(“Agreement”) with EIG Snow View Plaza, LLC, an Indiana limited liability company (“Seller”), as seller, with respect to the land and improvements thereon located in Parma, Ohio, more particularly described in the Agreement,
including, but not limited to, its right, title and interest in and to the Deposit (as defined in the Agreement). 
  

													
	Dated: October 11, 2010	 		 	 PHILLIPS EDISON GROUP, LLC,

		 		 	 an Ohio limited liability company

				
		 		 	 By:
	 	PHILLIPS EDISON LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,
		 		 		 	a Delaware limited partnership,
		 		 		 	Managing Member
					
		 		 		 	By:	 	PHILLIPS EDISON & COMPANY, INC.,
		 		 		 		 	a Maryland corporation,
		 		 		 		 	General Partner
						
		 		 		 		 	By:	 	 /s/ Robert F. Myers

		 		 		 		 	Name:	 	 Robert F. Myers

		 		 		 		 	Its:	 	 Chief Operating Officer



The undersigned, Assignee, hereby accepts the foregoing assignment and hereby assumes and agrees to perform all of Assignor’s
obligations under the Agreement and hereby releases, indemnifies and holds Assignor harmless from any loss, cost, liability or expense which may be suffered by Assignor in connection with such Agreement, except for any such loss, cost, liability or
expense resulting from the acts of Assignor in connection with the Agreement taken prior to the date of this Assignment without the applicable authorization or consent of the undersigned. 

 

							
	Dated: October 11, 2010	 		 	SNOW VIEW STATION LLC,
		 		 	a Delaware limited liability company
				
		 		 	By:	 	/s/ John B. Bessey
		 		 		 	John B. Bessey, President