alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# The Tuberculosis (Deer and Camelid) (England) Order 2014 (revoked)

        - Previous
        - Next

E+W+S

Statutory Instruments

# 2014 No. 2337

Animals, England

Animal Health

# The Tuberculosis (Deer and Camelid) (England) Order 2014 (revoked)F1

Made

21st August 2014

Coming into force

1st October 2014

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

F1Order revoked (1.10.2021) by The Tuberculosis in Animals (England) Order 2021 (S.I. 2021/1001), arts. 1(1), **26** (with art. 28(1)(a))

## F1EXPLANATORY NOTE                  

(This note is not part of the Order)

This Order applies in England and replaces the Tuberculosis (Deer) Order 1989 (S.I. 1989/878) so as to update the disease controls for deer. It introduces tuberculosis disease controls for camelids (llama, alpaca,                     vicuna and guanaco) for the first time.                  

Article 1(3) provides that the Order is to cease to have effect seven years after it comes into force.

Part 2 deals with deer:
          -  the notification requirements (articles 3 and 4); 
          -  veterinary inquiry into the presence of the disease (article 5); 
          -  testing of deer (article 6); 
          -  slaughter of deer to prevent spread of tuberculosis (article 7); 
          -  prohibitions (article 8); 
          -  precautions against the spread of infection (article 9); 
          -  identification and movement (article 10). 

Part 3 deals with camelids:
          -  notification of suspected tuberculosis in a carcase (article 11); 
          -  testing of camelids (article 12); 
          -  prohibitions (article 13); 
          -  precautions against the spread of infection (article 14); 
          -  slaughter of camelids to prevent spread of tuberculosis (article 15); 

Part 4 contains general provisions.

Article 18 provides for the ascertainment of market value for deer as specified in article 4(2)(b) of the Tuberculosis (Deer                     and Camelid) Slaughter and Compensation (England) Order 2014 (S.I. 2014/2338).                  

Article 19 revokes two Orders, and article 20 contains transitional provisions.

In addition article 21 requires the Secretary of State to review the operation and effect of this Order and publish a report                     within five years after it comes into force and within every five years after that. Following a review it will fall to the                     Secretary of State to consider whether the Order should remain as it is, or be revoked or be amended. A further instrument                     would be needed to revoke the Order or to amend it.                  

An impact assessment has not been produced for this instrument as no impact on the costs of the private or voluntary sectors                     is foreseen. An Explanatory Memorandum covering this Order and the related Tuberculosis (Deer and Camelid) Slaughter and Compensation                     (England) Order 2014 is published alongside both instruments on www.legislation.gov.uk.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Transportation

###### National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

# AGENCY:

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT). 

# ACTION:

Notice; withdrawal of petition for exemption. 

# SUMMARY:

This notice withdraws the petition by DaimlerChrysler Corporation (DaimlerChrysler) for an exemption from the parts marking requirements of the vehicle theft prevention standard for the Jeep Liberty vehicle line. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. Rosalind Proctor, Office of International Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Programs, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Proctor's phone number is (202) 366-0846. Her fax number is (202) 493-2290. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    In a petition dated March 30, 2005, DaimlerChrysler requested an exemption from the parts marking requirements of the theft prevention standard (49 CFR part 541) for the Jeep Liberty vehicle line, beginning with model year (MY) 2006. The petition requested an exemption from the parts marking requirements pursuant to 49 CFR part 543, Exemption from Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard, based on the installation of an antitheft device as standard equipment for the entire vehicle line. On July 12, 2005, the agency granted in full the petition of                           ( print page 53714)                        DaimlerChrysler for exemption of the Jeep Liberty from the parts marking requirements beginning with the 2006 model year. (See 70 FR 40103). Subsequently, DaimlerChrysler requested the agency to withdraw its petition for exemption for the Jeep Liberty vehicle line.                 

This notice acknowledges DaimlerChrysler's request for withdrawal of its March 30, 2005 petition for exemption. Accordingly, the Jeep Liberty vehicle line remains subject to the parts-marking requirements of 49 CFR part 541. 

Authority:49 U.S.C. 33106; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50. 

Issued on: September 1, 2005. 

Stephen R. Kratzke, 

Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. 

[FR Doc. 05-17843 Filed 9-8-05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
# C_2023252EN.01007601.xml

| 17.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/76 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/76

---

Action brought on 24 May 2023 — Fridman v Council

(Case T-296/23)

(2023/C 252/91)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Mikhail Fridman (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: T. Marembert and A. Bass, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/572 (1) of 13 March 2023 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, in so far as it concerns the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/572 (1) of 13 March 2023 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, in so far as it concerns the applicant;

| — | annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/571 (2) of 13 March 2023 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, in so far as it concerns the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/571 (2) of 13 March 2023 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, in so far as it concerns the applicant;

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

—

order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law, which are identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-283/23, Aven v Council.

---

(1)  (OJ 2023 L 75 I, p. 134).

(2)  (OJ 2023 L 75 I, p. 1).

---
J-S33016-19

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

JAMES LEE STANLEY 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 91 MDA 2019

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered December 13, 2018

In the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County 

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-06-CR-0001321-2005, 

CP-06-CR-0003610-2004

BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., OTT, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY OTT, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 10, 2019

James Lee Stanley appeals, pro se,

1

from the order entered on 

December 13, 2018, in the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County, denying 

Stanley relief on his petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act 

(PCRA), 41 Pa.C.S. § 9541 et seq. After granting counsel’s motion to 

withdraw, the PCRA court determined Stanley’s petition, his third, was 

untimely and none of the statutory timeliness exception found in the PCRA 

applied. Stanley filed this timely appeal. After a thorough review of the 

submission by the parties, relevant law, and the certified record, we quash 

the appeal for failure to follow our Supreme Court’s ruling in Commonwealth 

v. Walker, 185 A.3d 969 (Pa. 2018). 

____________________________________________

1 The PCRA court allowed appointed counsel to withdraw from representation 

after filing a Turner/Finley no-merit letter.
J-S33016-19

- 2 -

Walker requires an appellant to file separate notices of appeal where a 

single order disposes of issues under multiple docket numbers. Stanley’s 

PCRA petition and appeal both address his convictions under docket numbers 

CP-06-CR-3610-04 and CP-06-CR-1321-05. Accordingly, Stanley was 

required to file separate appeals for each docket. He did not. Therefore, 

under the dictates of Walker, we quash the appeal.2

Appeal quashed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 9/10/2019

____________________________________________

2

In addition to applying Walker, we also reviewed Stanley’s claim and the 

PCRA court’s disposition of the petition. We see no error in the PCRA court’s 

finding that the petition, filed approximately eight years late, was untimely 

and none of the statutory timeliness exceptions found at 42 Pa.C.S. § 

9545(b)(1) applied. Had we addressed the merits of this appeal in the body 

of this decision, Stanley would not have prevailed. However, because of our 

disposition of this matter, we will not provide an analysis of the issue. 
J-S33016-19

- 3 -
ABDO v. KAHN CONSTRUCTION CO.

No. 34P08-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 11, 2008.

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

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 13th day of November 2008 by Plaintiffs to Strike:

"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference this the 11th day of December 2008."
EXHIBIT 12.(A).1

                                  CERTIFICATION


I, Yosef Shiran, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 20-F/A (the
     Form 20-F, as amended, called "this report") of Tefron Ltd.;

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

3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
     information included in this report, fairly present in all material
     respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of
     the company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

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

     a.   designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
          disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
          supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the
          company, including its consolidated 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 company's disclosure controls and
          procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
          effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
          of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

     c.   disclosed in this report any change in the company's internal control
          over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by
          the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably
          likely to materially affect, the company's internal control over
          financial reporting; and

5.   The company's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on
     our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
     the company's auditors and the audit committee of company's board of
     directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

     a.   all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
          operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
          reasonably likely to adversely affect the company's ability to record,
          process, summarize and report financial data; and

     b.   any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
          employees who have a significant role in the company's internal
          control over financial reporting.

Date: September 21, 2004


/s/ Yosef Shiran
-----------------------
Yosef Shiran
Chief Executive Officer
----

(2004/C 33 E/057)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0648/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(5 March 2003)

Subject:   Absence of compensation and rehabilitation measures for people illegally deported from Slovakia in 1946 and 1947

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(7 April 2003)

The Commission is well aware of the post-war Czechoslovak legislation relating to members of the Hungarian and German minorities living in the Czechoslovak Republic. The Commission has conducted a thorough analysis of the relevant decrees issued by the Czechoslovak president and related laws of the years 1945 and 1946, as well as related aspects regarding the restitution legislation of the Czech(oslovak) Republic of the 1990s.

The Summary Findings of the Commission's analysis, which were presented to the public on 18 October 2002, do not show any obstacles to accession in the light of the acquis communautaire, as the decrees and laws in question cannot be applied anymore. Certain discriminatory elements in the relevant Czech (oslovak) restitution legislation with regard to confiscated property have not been found to be in contradiction with the acquis since all deadlines for filing new claims have expired. The Commission is grateful to the Honourable Member for pointing out that the law on forced labour he refers to has long ceased to apply.

The Commission cannot engage in a debate as to whether or not any given law on forced labour was applied in accordance with the same law's proper stipulations, at any given moment in history prior to the first European Community's coming into existence whether in an EU Member State or third country. The Commission recalls that article 5 of the Charter of Fundamental Human Rights of the European Union strictly prohibits any form of slavery or forced or compulsory labour, that is, irrespective of circumstances.

The Commission recalls that both the European Parliament and the European Council have repeatedly endorsed the Commission's view that the Slovak Republic fulfils the Copenhagen Criteria and will be able to fully implement and enforce the acquis communautaire by the date of accession. The Community has no competencies regarding matters of restitution or compensation for historical injustices. Member States may choose to set certain conditions or limitations to such measures as they see fit, provided the latter do not conflict with other applicable Community law such as the principle of non-discrimination.

The Commission appreciates all efforts by current and future Member States to address the burden and injustices of the past, and encourages them to persist in these efforts. The Communities have been founded on the common determination to overcome former tensions between the peoples of Europe. By addressing these questions of a moral and psychological nature, they contribute to the strengthening of our Union of mutual respect and understanding.

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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-04-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-01-2000
<CASH>                                           1,212
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   69,254
<ALLOWANCES>                                     9,573
<INVENTORY>                                     37,303
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               109,627
<PP&E>                                          69,782
<DEPRECIATION>                                  29,206
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 166,673
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           25,202
<BONDS>                                         65,552
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            88
<OTHER-SE>                                      73,798
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   166,673
<SALES>                                         77,159
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                77,159
<CGS>                                           54,398
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   54,398
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                23,140
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 4,089
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,404
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,049)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,218)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (831)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (831)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.11)


</TABLE>
Exhibit 23.2

           Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements of
NovaDel Pharma Inc. on Form S-8 (File No. 333-116665) and Forms SB-2 (File Nos.
333-86262, 333-107122, and 333-112852) of our report dated September 8, 2003 on
our audit of the financial statements of NovaDel Pharma Inc. as of July 31, 2003
and for the year then ended (which have been restated), which report is included
in this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB.


/s/  Wiss & Company, LLP

Livingston, New Jersey
November 11, 2004
STATE v. Ricky Dean JOHNSON.

No. 372P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 6, 2008.

Brandon L. Truman, Assistant Attorney General, Rick Shaffer, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 27th day of July 2007 by Defendant for "Petition for Discretionary Review":

"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference this the 6th day of March 2008."
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.27

                                 PROMISSORY NOTE

ALPHARETTA, GEORGIA                                         DATE: AUGUST 8, 2002

PRINCIPAL AMOUNT: US $30,000.00

INTEREST RATE: 10% per annum

DUE DATE: DECEMBER 31, 2002

FOR VALUE RECEIVED the undersigned, Syndicated Food Services International Inc.,
a Florida corporation (the "Borrower") promises to pay to the order of FIDRA
HOLDINGS LTD., OR ITS SUCCESSORS OR ASSIGNS (THE "HOLDER"), the sum of THIRTY
THOUSAND US DOLLARS (USD $30,000.00) (The Principal) on December 31, 2002 (The
"Maturity Date"), together with the interest at the rate of Ten per cent (10%)
per annum on the principal amount outstanding from time to time until paid in
full and payable on the last day of each calendar month commencing on September
30th. All sums due hereunder shall be paid by the Borrower to the holder of this
Note at such address as designated by the holder of this Note to the Borrower.

In the event a default shall be made in payment of any installment of interest
or principal or other charges when due all such amounts shall bear interest at a
default rate of interest from the date of default at the rate of 12% per annum
and shall be immediately due and payable. In the event of any default hereunder
the holders shall be entitled to all remedies at law or in equity and shall be
entitled to all costs and expenses incurred by its, including attorneys fees.

This Note shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the
State of New York, without regard to conflict of law principles. Any dispute
with respect to the interpretation of this Note or the rights and obligations of
the parties shall be exclusively brought in a proceeding in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York or if such court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction in the Supreme Court of the State of New York,
County of New York. Each of the holder and the Borrower waives the right to
context the jurisdiction or venue of either of such courts or to claim it is an
inconvenient forum.

Neither the Borrower or the holder may claim the right to have a jury trial and
the Borrower shall have no right of offset or counterclaim.

The Borrower expressly waives the right to notice of any default or the right to
presentment or demand.

The proceeds of this Note shall be used to fund accounting expenses associated
with the audit of the company's books and records for the calendar year ended
December 31, 2001 and quarterly reviews for the calendar year ending December
31, 2002.

SYNIDICATED FOOD SERVICE INTERNATIONAL INC.,

By: /s/ Thomas P. Tanis Jr.
    --------------------------------
    THOMAS P. TANIS, JR.
    CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

                                /s/ BECKY MCCLURE
                                -----------------------
                                  BECKY MCCLURE
                     Notary Public, Forsyth County, Georgia
                       My Commission Expires June 7, 2005