alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 172 (Wednesday, September 7, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 53151]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-17702]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS


Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the Alaska Advisory 
Committee

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and 
regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, that a conference 
call of the Alaska State Advisory Committee in the Western Region will 
convene at 10 a.m. (PDT) and adjourn at 11 a.m., Thursday, September 
29, 2005. The purpose of the conference call is to discuss ongoing 
projects and plan future activities.
    This conference call is available to the public through the 
following call-in number: 1-800-473-8694, access code number 44001081. 
Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to 
the meeting. Callers can expect to incur charges for calls not 
initiated using the provided call-in number or over wireless lines and 
the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur 
no charge for calls using the call-in number over land-line 
connections. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the 
proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-
8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and 
access code.
    To ensure that the Commission secures an appropriate number of 
lines for the public, persons are asked to register by contacting 
Thomas Pilla of the Western Regional Office, (213) 894-3437, by 3 p.m. 
on Wednesday, September 28, 2005.
    The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the 
rules and regulations of the Commission.

    Dated at Washington, DC, August 31, 2005.
Ivy L. Davis,
Acting Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit.
[FR Doc. 05-17702 Filed 9-6-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1

                   STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE LOSS
               FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 2000 AND 2001

HISTORICAL BASIC AND DILUTED NET LOSS PER SHARE

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                  Three Months Ended March 31, 2000          Three Months Ended March 31, 2001
                                                 -----------------------------------       ------------------------------------
                                                   Shares Outstanding                         Shares Outstanding
                                                 ----------------------                    ---------------------
                                                              Weighted                                   Weighted
                                                   Total       Average                       Total       Average
                                                ----------   ----------                    ----------   ----------
<S>                                              <C>          <C>        <C>               <C>          <C>         <C>
Net loss                                                                 $(3,058,124)                               $(2,470,521)
Common stock:
    Shares outstanding at beginning of period    2,694,798    2,694,798                    23,894,680   23,894,680
    Issued during the period:
       Exercise of warrants                         60,150       18,665
       Exercise of stock options                    63,500       40,329                        32,666       13,592
                                                ----------   ----------                    ----------   ----------

       Shares outstanding at end of period       2,818,448    2,753,792    2,753,792       23,927,346   23,908,272   23,908,272
                                                                         -----------                                -----------

Historical basic and diluted net loss per share                          $     (1.11)                               $     (0.10)
                                                                         ===========                                ===========


PRO FORMA BASIC AND DILUTED NET LOSS PER SHARE

Common Stock:
    Conversion of preferred shares on January 1 13,794,104   13,794,104                            --           --
                                                ----------   ----------                    ----------   ----------

                                                16,612,552   16,547,896   16,547,896       23,927,346   23,908,272   23,908,272
                                                ==========   ==========   ----------       ==========   ==========   ----------

Pro forma basic and diluted net loss per share                           $    (0.18)                                $    (0.10)
                                                                         ==========                                  ==========
</TABLE>
STATE of North Carolina v. Jesus Armando ANDRADE.

No. 4P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 6, 2008.

J. Clark Fischer, Winston-Salem, for Antrade.

Francis W. Crawley, Special Deputy Attorney General, Thomas J. Keith, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*51*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 4th day of January 2008 by Defendant 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 6th day of March 2008."
STATE of North Carolina v. Ronald Donall STANLEY.

No. 599P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 11, 2008.

William D. Spence, Kinston, for Stanley.

Karen Collins, Assistant Attorney General, R. Stuart Albright, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 17th day of December 2007 by Defendant 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."
# C_2023155EN.01007201.xml

| 2.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/72 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/72

---

Action brought on 9 March 2023 — Meta Platforms Ireland v European Data Protection Board

(Case T-129/23)

(2023/C 155/89)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Meta Platforms Ireland Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: H. Kamann, F. Louis, M. Braun and A. Vallery, lawyers, P. Nolan, B. Johnston, C. Monaghan and D. Breatnach, Solicitors, D. McGrath, E. Egan McGrath and H. Godfrey, Barristers)

Defendant: European Data Protection Board (EDPB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the EDPB’s Binding Decision 3/2022 on the dispute submitted by the Irish SA on Meta Platforms Ireland Limited and its Facebook service (Art. 65 GDPR) adopted on 5 December 2022, in total or, in the alternative, in its relevant parts; and, |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the EDPB’s Binding Decision 3/2022 on the dispute submitted by the Irish SA on Meta Platforms Ireland Limited and its Facebook service (Art. 65 GDPR) adopted on 5 December 2022, in total or, in the alternative, in its relevant parts; and,

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the EDPB exceeded its competence under Article 65 GDPR. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the EDPB exceeded its competence under Article 65 GDPR.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the EDPB infringed Article 6(1)(b) GDPR by interpreting the concept of contractual necessity overly narrowly and applying this incorrect legal standard based on an incorrect interpretation of Meta Ireland’s Terms of Service. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the EDPB infringed Article 6(1)(b) GDPR by interpreting the concept of contractual necessity overly narrowly and applying this incorrect legal standard based on an incorrect interpretation of Meta Ireland’s Terms of Service.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the EDPB infringed the right to good administration as enshrined in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the EDPB infringed the right to good administration as enshrined in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that that the EDPB failed to act as an impartial body. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that that the EDPB failed to act as an impartial body.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the EDPB violated Article 83 GDPR and various underlying principles governing the determination of fines under the GDPR. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the EDPB violated Article 83 GDPR and various underlying principles governing the determination of fines under the GDPR.

---
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan



### October 31, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice


### 131556 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan 

### PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices



### v SC: 131556 COA: 261602 Monroe CC: 04-033818-FC ANDREW MICHAEL OUELLETTE, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 20, 2006 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.

p1023 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.

October 31, 2006

Clerk
STATE v. HARLEY.

No. COA08-60.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed November 4, 2008.

Certification Date November 24, 2008.

Appeal from Rowan (04CRS59340, 04CRS59341, 04CRS59342, 04CRS59343).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
IN RE K.D.A.

No. COA07-1173.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed June 17, 2008.

Certification Date July 7, 2008.

Appeal from Rowan (06JB223).

Case reported without published opinion. Remanded.
# CE2004088EN.01062001.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/620 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/620

---

(2004/C 88 E/0639)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1902/03

by Lord Inglewood (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 June 2003)

Subject:   VAT and the European art market

Subject:

Does the Commission agree with the conclusions of the study ‘VAT and the European Art Market’ published by the European Fine Art Foundation in 2003? If not, why not? In particular, will it submit a proposal for a single registration system, as proposed in that study?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(14 July 2003)

(14 July 2003)

The greater part of the study ‘VAT and the European Art market’ is taken up by a detailed guide for art traders explaining the VAT obligations imposed by Member States. The Commission commends the European Fine Arts Federation for taking the initiative to collate and publish this information.

Following the adoption of the Directive on the VAT treatment of e-services (1) which is referred to in the European Fine Art Federation's study, the Commission is fully committed to the concept of the ‘one stop shop’ whereby traders would be able to fulfil their tax obligations in the Member State in which they are established. In this regard, the Commission has commissioned a major study into the obligations faced by taxable persons who wish to trade in their own and in other Member States. The conclusions of this study are currently the subject of a public consultation on the ‘Your voice in Europe’ (2) website. The Commission will take comments received on this consultation into account when drafting a proposal regarding the simplification of obligations, including registration obligations, which it intends to make in 2004.

1

2

---

(1)  Council Directive 2002/38/EC of 7 May 2002 amending and amending temporarily Directive 77/388/EEC as regards the value added tax arrangements applicable to radio and television broadcasting services and certain electronically supplied services, OJ L 128, 15.5.2002.

1

(2)  http://europa.eu.int/yourvoice/consultations/index_en.htm

2

---
EXHIBIT 99.2





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18 U.S.C. 1350)





In connection with the Quarterly Report of Wells Real Estate Fund IX, L.P. (the Registrant) on Form 10-Q for the
three month period ended June 30, 2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Douglas P. Williams, Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, hereby certifies, pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) that:





(1)  The Report
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.





/s/    Douglas P. WilliamsDouglas P. Williams Chief Financial Officer





August 12, 2002
#### In the Matter of Larry Porter, Petitioner, v Glenn S. Goord, as Commissioner of Correctional Services, et al., Respondents.

[800 NYS2d 857]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Chemung County) to review a determination of respondent Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with interfering with an employee, harassment, soliciting a sexual act and *1199refusing a direct order stemming from his conduct during a meeting with a tier assistant on a separate disciplinary matter. Following a disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty of all charges. The determination was upheld on administrative appeal and this CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

The misbehavior report and testimony of the tier assistant who authored it, together with the testimony from an eyewitness correction officer and the surveillance videotape of the assistance’s visit, provide substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt *(see Matter of Goncalves v Berbary,*14 AD3d 743, 744 [2005]; *Matter of Thomas v Goord,*293 AD2d 799, 799-800 [2002], *appeal dismissed*98 NY2d 727 [2002], *lv denied*98 NY2d 613 [2002]). To the extent that petitioner maintains that the misbehavior report was issued in retaliation for a prior incident involving the same tier assistant, this created a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve *(see Matter of Brown v Goord,*17 AD3d 952 [2005]). Petitioner’s remaining contentions, including his claim of hearing officer bias, have been reviewed and found to be without merit.

Crew III, J.P., Peters, Spain, Rose and Kane, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
## 1998 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

3-9-1998 

# K lein v . B o yd

P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al :

D ocke t 97-1143,97-1261

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w
. v i l l a no v a
. e du/thir dc ir c uit_1998

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 1998 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min

. C a rl s on@l a

w
. v i l l a no v a
. e du

. 

## Re c omme nde d C it a t ion

" K lein v . Bo y d " (1998). 1998 D e cisio n s

. P ape r 38. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w
. v i l l a no v a
. e du/thir dc ir c uit_1998/38

### Filed March 9, 1998

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

Nos. 97-1143 & 97-1261

ELYSE S. KLEIN; RICHARD KASTNER; DORIS KASTNER; WARREN KASTNER, Appellants in No. 97-1143

v.

WILLIAM BALLANTINE BOYD, III; WILLIAM DISSTON COLEMAN; THOMAS H. TARANTINO; LAWRENCE G. STEVENS; GREGORY JAMGOCHIAN; DRINKER, BIDDLE & REATH; MERCER SECURITIES, INC.; MERCER SECURITIES, LTD.

ELYSE S. KLEIN; RICHARD KASTNER; DORIS KASTNER; WARREN KASTNER, Appellants in No. 97-1261

v.

WILLIAM BALLANTINE BOYD, III; WILLIAM DISSTON COLEMAN; THOMAS H. TARANTINO; LAWRENCE G. STEVENS; GREGORY JAMGOCHIAN; DRINKER, BIDDLE & REATH; MERCER SECURITIES, INC.; MERCER SECURITIES, LTD.
On Appeal From the United States District Court For the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civ. No. 95-cv-05410)

### Present: BECKER, Chief Judge, SLOVITER, STAPLETON,

MANSMANN, GREENBERG, SCIRICA, COWEN, NYGAARD, ALITO, McKEE, and RENDELL, Circuit Judges,

ORDER
A majority of the active judges having voted for re hearing en banc in the above appeal, it is ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court vacate the opinion filed February 12, 1998 and list the above for rehearing en banc at the con venience of the Court.

By the Court,

/s/ Edward R. Becker

Chief Judge

Dated: March 9, 1998

A True Copy: Teste:
Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
EXHIBIT 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                         ALL-AMERICAN SPORTPARK, INC.
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


     I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the Quarterly Report on
Form 10-QSB of All-American SportPark, Inc. for the period ending September 30,
2003:

     (1) complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material aspects, the financial condition and results of operations of All-
American SportPark, Inc.




/s/ Ronald S. Boreta
-----------------------------
Ronald S. Boreta
Chief Executive Officer
November 12, 2003


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to All-American SportPark, Inc. and
will be retained by All-American SportPark, Inc. and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission upon request.
Mary E. FULMORE, Administrator of the Estate of Priscilla Ann Maultsby, Plaintiff v. Gregory HOWELL and PFS Distribution Company, Inc., Defendants/Third-Party Plaintiff v. Ina Loftin Harper, Third-Party Defendant.

No. 526P07-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 26, 2008.

Charles F. Hilton, Thomas E. Ullrich, Harrisonburg, VA, Paul A. Daniels, Greensboro, for Howell & PFS Distribution Co.

Joretta Durant, Shean Williams, Atlanta, GA, Hezakiah Sistrunk, Jr., for Fulmore.

Stuart L. Stroud, Kinston, for Harper.

Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ___, 657 S.E.2d 437.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 4th day of April 2008 by Defendants (Howell and PFS Distribution) 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."
# The Fluorinated Greenhouse Gases (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2014 (revoked)

        - Previous
        - Next

N.I.

Statutory Rules of Northern Ireland

# 2014 No. 77

Environmental Protection

# The Fluorinated Greenhouse Gases (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2014 (revoked)F1

Made

12th March 2014

Coming into operation

23rd April 2014

F1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                        

F1Regulations revoked (31.1.2016) by The Fluorinated Greenhouse Gases Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2015 (S.R. 2015/425), regs. 1(1), **30(c)** (with reg. 29)
----

(2004/C 33 E/172)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1801/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(28 May 2003)

Subject:   Cosmic radiation

In 1996, the EU agreed a directive (96/29/Euratom (1)) on basic safety standards for the protection of the health of workers and the general public against the dangers arising from ionising radiation. With reference to aviation, provision was only made for aircrew and pregnant women. In the light of the recent evidence on risks, does the Commission now agree that frequent flyers should be included in the safety standards?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(2 July 2003)

Title VII (Articles 40 to 42) of Council Directive 96/29/Euratom of 13 May 1996 laying down the basic safety standards for the protection of the health of workers and the general public against the dangers arising from ionising radiation relates to significant increase in exposures due to natural radiation sources as a consequence of work activities.

The only activity specifically identified in this Title is aircrew exposed to cosmic radiation (Article 42). Member States can always adapt at national level, specific provisions for example for frequent flyers if they consider that appropriate.

The Commission is not aware of any new evidence on risks arising from cosmic radiation which would justify an adaptation of the radiation protection basic safety standards Directive at this stage.

----

(1)OJ L 159, 29.6.1996, p. 1.

----
**Exhibit 32.2**

** **

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of ERP Operating Limited Partnership (“ERPOP”) on Form 10-Qfor the period ending June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Donna Brandin, ChiefFinancial Officer of Equity Residential, general partner of ERPOP, certify,pursuant to 18.U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

 

(1)                                  TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                                  Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of ERPOP.

 
| /s/ Donna Brandin       |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
| Donna Brandin           |
| Chief Financial Officer |
| of Equity Residential   |
| August 8, 2005     |

 

----
IN RE A.W.

No. COA08-506.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed November 4, 2008.

Certification Date November 24, 2008.

Appeal from New Hanover (06JT324, 06JT325, 06JT415).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
CITIBANK, SOUTH DAKOTA, N.A. v. BOWEN.

No. COA08-392.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed December 16, 2008.

Certification Date January 5, 2009.

Appeal from Harnett (07CVD497).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.