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

(2004/C 33 E/032)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0169/03

by Wilhelm Piecyk (PSE) to the Commission

(29 January 2003)

Subject:   Lack of democratisation in GATS negotiations

In 2000, a new round of negotiations on the liberalisation of trade in services (General Agreement on Trade in Services) began. At the Fourth WTO Ministerial Conference in Doha in 2001, clear deadlines were set for initial requests for market access in other countries, and for the submission of offers to other countries. In early July 2002, the EU submitted its initial requests for improved market access in services sectors to 109 members of the WTO, and itself received numerous requests from third countries seeking further access to the EU services market. Initial offers of service sector liberalisation by individual countries are due to be published in late March 2003.

There has been widespread criticism that the negotiations, which are now at a decisive stage, continue to be insufficiently democratic. It is claimed that the negotiations are not conducted transparently or monitored democratically. Neither national parliaments nor the European Parliament are in any position to monitor the conduct of negotiations, let alone bring their influence to bear on them.

What action does the Commission intend to take to improve the democratic credentials of the GATS negotiations and give the negotiations greater transparency?

----
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1734

JOHN PAUL TURNER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus THOMAS H. WOOD, Judge; PATRICK COFFIELD, Defendants - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (MISC-99-46-7) Submitted: September 30, 1999 Decided: October 5, 1999 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Paul Turner, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: John Paul Turner appeals the district court’s order finding that Turner had not complied with a preliminary injunction anddenying Turner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Turner v. Wood , No. MISC-99-46-7 (W.D. Va. May 18, 1999). We deny the motions for consolidation of all pending cases and for appointment of counsel. We 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.

DISMISSED
STATE of North Carolina v. Roman PERDOMO.

No. 246P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 11, 2007.

Daniel F. Read, Durham, for Perdomo.

Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, C. Colon Willoughby, Jr., District Attorney, for State of NC.

*155*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 22nd day of May 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 October 2007."
STATE v. McARTHUR.

No. COA07-1348.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed July 1, 2008.

Certification Date July 21, 2008.

Appeal from Randolph (05CRS125).

Case reported without published opinion. No prejudicial error.
In the Matter of K.H.

No. 186P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 23, 2008.

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

Terry F. Rose, Smithfield, for Stacey Means.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 22nd day of April 2008 by Petitioners (Cumberland Co. DSS & GAL) for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference this the 23rd day of April 2008."
Promissory Note, dated April 16, 2009



  
 Exhibit 10.9

 PROMISSORY NOTE 
  

			
	U.S. $25,000,000	 	Date: 16 April, 2009
		 	St. John’s, Antigua

 FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned, M2 Global Ltd. (the “Issuer”), a company registered in Antigua and Barbuda, hereby promises to pay to European Securities Limited, a
Marshall Islands company, or its assigns, the principal sum of Twenty-five Million Dollars ($25,000,000.00), together with interest thereon as follows: this promissory note (this “Note”) shall bear no interest through
December 31, 2009; from January 1, 2010 until maturity this Note shall bear interest at the rate of Five Percent (5.00%) per annum. 
 The entire unpaid principal amount outstanding under this promissory note (this “Note”), together with interest thereon, shall be due and payable on 31 December 2015 (the
“Maturity Date”). Interest is to be paid on the Maturity Date. Issuer may, at any time, prepay any or all of the principal or interest due under this Note without premium or penalty. Payments with respect to this Note are to be made in
lawful money of the United States of America. 
 The entire unpaid principal amount outstanding under this Note, together with
interest thereon, shall become immediately due and payable upon the insolvency of Issuer, the filing of a petition in bankruptcy by Issuer, the execution by Issuer of a general assignment for the benefit of creditors, or the filing by or against
Issuer of a petition in bankruptcy or a petition for relief under the provisions of any country’s bankruptcy act or law for the relief of debtors and the continuation of such petition without dismissal for a period of 90 days or more. Any
principal balance that is due but remains unpaid shall bear interest at the rate often percent (10%) until paid in fill. 

The parties hereto hereby expressly waive presentment, demand for payment, dishonor, notice of dishonor, protest, notice of protest, and
any other formality. This Note shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Florida without regard to the principles or rules of conflicts of laws thereof to the extent that such principles or rules would require
the application of the laws of another jurisdiction. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Issuer has caused this Note to be duly executed and
delivered as of the day and year first above written. 
  

	
	M2 GLOBAL LTD.
	
	 /s/ Michael A. Muscato

	By: Michael A. Muscato, CEO
# C_2023024EN.01005601.xml

| 23.1.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.1.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/56

---

Action brought on 12 November 2022 — TA v Commission

(Case T-702/22)

(2023/C 24/78)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: TA (represented by: A. Ferreira Correia and R. da Palma Borges, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision in respect of Articles 1 and 4, on the grounds of failure to state reasons, or in so far as those articles apply to beneficiaries on account of the fact that they have employees who are non-resident in the outermost region, or that those beneficiaries obtain earnings from transactions outside the outermost region; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision in respect of Articles 1 and 4, on the grounds of failure to state reasons, or in so far as those articles apply to beneficiaries on account of the fact that they have employees who are non-resident in the outermost region, or that those beneficiaries obtain earnings from transactions outside the outermost region;

| — | order the defendant institution to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant institution to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action brought against Commission Decision (EU) 2022/1414 of 4 December 2020 on aid scheme SA.21259 (2018/C) (ex 2018/NN) implemented by Portugal for Zona Franca da Madeira (ZFM) — Regime III (notified under document C(2020) 8550) (OJ 2022 L 217, p. 49), the applicant relies on five pleas in law.

First plea in law, alleging failure to state reasons in the contested decision.

Second plea in law, alleging error of assessment of fact and of law in the contested decision, in that benefits conferred on undertakings that were established regionally, but had relationships with the exterior, were found not to be compatible with the internal market within the meaning of Article 107(3) TFEU.

Third plea in law, alleging error of assessment of fact and of law in the contested decision, in benefits conferred on undertakings that were established regionally, but maintained employment relationships with employees, who were not in the outermost region on a permanent basis, were found not to be compatible with the internal market within the meaning of Article 107(3) TFEU.

Fourth plea in law, alleging error of assessment of fact and of law in the contested decision, in that benefits conferred on undertakings that do not exceed the quantitative limits laid down in the Regional State Aid Guidelines 2007 and in the General Block Exemption Regulation 2014, were found not to be compatible with the internal market within the meaning of Article 107(3) TFEU.

Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of general principles of EU law: legal certainty, legitimate expectations and legality.

---
ROCHESTER MIDLAND CORP. v. SELLERS.

No. COA08-172.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed October 7, 2008.

Certification Date October 27, 2008.

Appeal from Randolph (06CVS1733).

Case reported without published opinion. Dismissed.
# C_2023121EN.01001601.xml

| 3.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 121/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 121/16

---

Action brought on 20 February 2023 — Biogena v EUIPO (THE GOOD GUMS)

(Case T-87/23)

(2023/C 121/22)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Biogena GmbH & Co. KG (Salzburg, Austria) (represented by: I. Schiffer, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark THE GOOD GUMS — International registration No 1 632 678 designating the European Union

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 December 2022 in Case R 1690/2022-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | grant the registration of the international registration No 1 632 678 for all applied goods; |
| --- | --- |

—

grant the registration of the international registration No 1 632 678 for all applied goods;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) in conjunction with Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) in conjunction with Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
Side Letter Agreement, dated November 1, 2010



  
 Exhibit 10.20

  

			
	
 



	  	 Global Asset Fund Ltd.
 Caledonian House
 69 Dr. Roy’s Drive

George Town, Cayman Islands


 CONFIDENTIAL 
 01 November 2010 
 GEOTAG INC. 
 555 Republic Drive 
 Suite 200 
 Plano, Texas 75074 
 Attn: Antony Norris 
 Dear Tony: 
 Reference is hereby made to (i) that certain Promissory Note, dated as of February 25, 2009 (the “2009 Note”), issued to Global Asset Fund Ltd., a Cayman Islands company
(“GAF”), by Ubixo Limited, an Antigua and Barbuda company that was formerly known as M2 Global Ltd. (“Ubixo”), and (ii) that certain Promissory Note, dated as of September 26, 2007 (the “2007 Note,” and
together with the 2009 Note, the “Notes”), issued originally to GAF by Geomas Software LLC, a Texas corporation (“Geomas”), and later assigned by Geomas to Ubixo. Each of the Notes were assigned by Ubixo to GEOTAG INC. on
July 12, 2010, pursuant to the terms of that certain Business Purchase Agreement, dated as of July 12, 2010, by and between Ubixo and GEOTAG INC., as amended by that certain Amendment No. 1 to Business Purchase Agreement, dated as of
August 26, 2010, by and between Ubixo Limited and GEOTAG INC. For good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereby agree as follows: 

 

	1.	Maturity Date Extension. The maturity date of each of the Notes shall be extended to December 31, 2011. 


 

	2.	Consent and Waiver. 

 (a) GAF
hereby expressly acknowledges and ratifies the assignment of the Notes to GEOTAG INC. 
 (b) GAF HEREBY IRREVOCABLY,
UNCONDITIONALLY AND COMPLETELY RELEASES, ACQUITS AND FOREVER DISCHARGES GEOTAG INC., AND EACH OF ITS AFFILIATES, PREDECESSORS, SUCCESSORS AND 







 
ASSIGNS (THE “RELEASEES”) FROM ANY PAST OR PRESENT DISPUTES, CLAIMS, CONTROVERSIES, DEMANDS, RIGHTS, OBLIGATIONS, LIABILITIES, ACTIONS AND/OR CAUSES OF ACTION OF EVERY KIND AND NATURE
THAT MAY BE ASSERTED OR EXERCISED BY GAF IN CONNECTION WITH ANY PAST OR PRESENT BREACHES OF THE NOTES OR ANY AGREEMENTS SECURING THE NOTES BY ANY OF THE RELEASEES. 
 3. Ratification and Effect. This letter shall be construed in connection with and as part of each of the Notes, and all terms, conditions, and covenants set forth in the Notes and each other instrument or
agreement referred to therein, as applicable, except as herein amended, are hereby ratified and confirmed and shall remain in full force and effect. 
 4. Counterparts. This letter may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. 

To acknowledge your acceptance of the terms of this letter, please so indicate in the space provided below. 

Sincerely, 
 Global Asset Fund Ltd. 

 

	
	 /s/ Illegible

	Investment Manager
	Authorized Signatory

 Accepted and agreed as of the date
first above written: 
 GEOTAG INC. 
  

	
	 /s/ Antony Norris

	 Antony Norris

	 President
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted
from the consolidated financial statements of Twin City Bancorp,
Inc. and Subsidiaries in the filing to which this schedule is an
exhibit and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
<MULTIPLIER>  1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                       2,202
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         443
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                 0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                      0
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                        20,890
<LOANS>                                     77,188
<ALLOWANCE>                                    251
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             104,488
<DEPOSITS>                                  85,482
<SHORT-TERM>                                 3,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          1,507
<LONG-TERM>                                  1,000
<COMMON>                                       854
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<OTHER-SE>                                  12,645
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             104,488
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              1,634
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              322
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                22
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             1,978
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             966
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,022
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          956
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   22
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                               0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                736
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                414
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     414
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                   251
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                   0
<LOANS-NON>                                      0
<LOANS-PAST>                                     0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                 0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 0
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    0
<RECOVERIES>                                     0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                0
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                              0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          0
        

</TABLE>
IN RE E.G.F.

No. COA07-1409.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed April 15, 2008.

Certification Date May 5, 2008.

Appeal from Mecklenburg (05JT365, 05JT366).

Cases reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, John R. Serino, certify that:

 

1.               I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Qof Encision Inc.;

 

2.               Based on my knowledge, this quarterly reportdoes not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state amaterial fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.               Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;

 

4.               The registrant’s other certifying officer andI are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e))for the registrant and have:

 

a)              designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

 

b)             evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

c)              disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting;

 

5.               Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

a)              allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s abilityto record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

b)             anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

 

 

Dated:    August 14, 2008.

 
|   | /s/  John R. Serino          |
|--------|------------------------------|
|   |                         |
|   | John  R. Serino              |
|   | Principal  Executive Officer |

 

1

----
#### In the Matter of Daniel D., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Respondent. Presentment Agency, Appellant.

[799 NYS2d 821]

In a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, the appeal is from an order of the Family Court, Orange County (Klein, J.), entered December 22, 2004, which dismissed the petition.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the petition is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to Family Court, Orange County, for further proceedings consistent herewith.

In a prior petition dated October 26, 2004, filed under docket Number D-5532/04, the Presentment Agency alleged that the appellant committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crime of assault in the third degree, based upon the supporting depositions of the complainant and two eyewitnesses. While that petition was pending, the Presentment Agency filed the instant petition dated December 10, 2004, under docket Number D-6530/04, alleging that the appellant committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crimes of criminal mischief in the fourth degree and attempted assault in the third degree based upon the same *489supporting depositions of the complainant and two eyewitnesses, and a deposition of the complainant’s father stating that the complainant’s eyeglasses which were broken during the incident were worth in excess of $250.

The order appealed from dismissed the petition dated December 10, 2004, on the ground that it was an attempt to amend the prior petition “in direct contravention of. . . Family Court Act 311.5 which specifically disallows the amendment of a petition for the purpose of curing [a] failure to charge or state a crime.” We reverse.

The authority of the Family Court to dismiss a juvenile delinquency petition “is governed by statute, and is available only in carefully delineated circumstances” *(Matter of Robert O.,*87 NY2d 9, 14 [1995]). In the instant case, no such circumstances were present.

We note that there was no determination in the record that the prior petition was defective. Where petitions allege crimes which are joinable in a single petition by reason of being based upon the same act or criminal transaction, the remedy is consolidation, not dismissal of the second petition *(see*Family Ct Act § 311.6 [4]).

Moreover, if the first petition had been dismissed for failure to state a crime, the proper remedy would have been to file a new petition *(see Matter of Robert O., supra*at 14; *Matter of Detrece H.,*78 NY2d 107, 111 [1991]). Adams, J.P., Goldstein, Crane and Skelos, JJ., concur.