alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 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-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-1-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          30,538
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,010
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (285)
<INVENTORY>                                        285
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                58,652
<PP&E>                                          44,119
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (4,657)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 118,759
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           38,386
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            13
<OTHER-SE>                                      63,628
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   118,759
<SALES>                                        118,540
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               120,326
<CGS>                                          122,670
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  122,670
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 489
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,833)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,833)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,833)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.21)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.21)
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
THE CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOUND
ON PAGES 2 AND 3 OF THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-QSB FOR THE YEAR-TO-DATE.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          20,940
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    129,810
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               389,948
<PP&E>                                       4,027,847
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,819,832
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,928,576
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,713,109
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        27,004
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,677,963
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,928,576
<SALES>                                      4,546,606
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,546,606
<CGS>                                        4,324,887
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,324,887
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               312,800
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              60,611
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (151,692)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (151,692)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (151,692)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.06)


</TABLE>
# Commission Regulation (EU) No 787/2014Show full title

Commission Regulation (EU) No 787/2014 of 16 July 2014 establishing a prohibition of fishing for horsemackerel and associated            by-catches in Union waters of IVb, IVc and VIId by vessels flying the flag of Belgium         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Regulation (EU) No 787/2014                     

# of 16 July 2014

# establishing a prohibition of fishing for horsemackerel and associated by-catches in Union waters of IVb, IVc and VIId by                        vessels flying the flag of Belgium                     

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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

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

Whereas:

(1)Council Regulation (EU) No 43/2014(2), lays down quotas for 2014.

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

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

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

## Article 1U.K.Quota exhaustion

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

## Article 2U.K.Prohibitions

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

## Article 3U.K.Entry into force

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*.                  

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 16 July 2014.

*For the Commission*                            

*On behalf of the President,*                            

Lowri Evans                            

*Director-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries*                            

## ANNEXU.K.

1

OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.                           

2

Council Regulation (EU) No 43/2014 of 20 January 2014 fixing for 2014 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and                              groups of fish stocks, applicable in Union waters and, to Union vessels, in certain non-Union waters (OJ L 24, 28.1.2014, p. 1).
# CE2004070EN.01001602.xml

| 20.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 70/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 70/16

---

(2004/C 70 E/017)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3648/02

by Hanja Maij-Weggen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 December 2002)

Subject:   Freedom of religion in Laos

Subject:

As the Commission is aware, freedom of religion hardly exists in Laos.

Is the Commission also aware that between June and August 2002, at least 39 Christians were detained in Laos because of their beliefs and that they are being held in prison under appalling conditions?

Will the Commission bring pressure to bear on the authorities in Laos to secure the release of these prisoners and a change in policy on freedom of religion?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(29 January 2003)

(29 January 2003)

The Commission is well aware of reports that freedom of religious expression remains restricted in Laos, including reports of members of Christian groups being persecuted and/or detained on grounds of their religious affiliation.

In relation to the particular events mentioned in the question, enquiries with Union and other partners in Laos have not yielded any reliable confirmation.

However, while the Laotian Constitution stipulates ‘the right and freedom to believe or not to believe in religion’, the authorities apparently restrict this right in practice, especially to non-Buddhist communities.

The level of tolerance of religious practice also seem to vary between regions. There have been reports of arrests and detention of religious believers and their spiritual leaders without charges. Some Christians have also been sentenced for gathering ‘to create social turmoil’. Some reports also mention difficulties for religious groups seeking to establish new places of worship.

The Commission Delegation in Bangkok, which covers relations with the Lao People's Democratic Republic (PDR), together with the diplomatic missions of the Member States, follows this and other matters relating to human rights in Laos very closely. The Commission has on several occasions highlighted the need to strengthen respect for civil and political rights, including freedom of religion, in Laos. The opening of a Community Delegation in Vientiane in 2003 will give additional opportunity to raise our concerns in this field with the Lao Government.

---
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

The Board of Directors 

Logility, Inc.:

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in theregistration statement No. 333-62531 on Form S-8 of Logility, Inc. of our reports dated June 11, 2004, relating to the balance sheets of Logility, Inc. as of April 30, 2004 and 2003, and the related statements of operations, shareholders’equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended April 30, 2004, and related schedule, which reports appear in the April 30, 2004, annual report on Form 10-K of Logility, Inc. 

 

/s/    KPMG LLP 

 

Atlanta, Georgia 

July 12, 2004
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>   5

<S>                                                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                 YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                         Jun-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                              Jun-30-1998
<CASH>                                                            145
<SECURITIES>                                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                  32,286
<ALLOWANCES>                                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                               32,431
<PP&E>                                                              0
<DEPRECIATION>                                                      0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                132,431
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                         100,000
<BONDS>                                                             0
<COMMON>                                                           43
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                               0
<PREFERRED>                                                         0
<OTHER-SE>                                                     10,163
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                  132,431
<SALES>                                                             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                    0
<CGS>                                                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                               48,054
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                             (5,000)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                               (76,192)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                           (76,192)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                     0
<CHANGES>                                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                                  (76,192)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                    (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                    (.01)





</TABLE>
# CE2004078EN.01070701.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/707 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/707

---

(2004/C 78 E/0755)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0926/03

by Peter Skinner (PSE) to the Commission

(24 March 2003)

Subject:   Relocation of workforce from Eastleigh, United Kingdom to Battipaglia, Southern Italy by Pirelli

Subject:

I have been informed by a local Eastleigh Labour Councillor, Cllr Bill Luffman, that Pirelli illegally transferred 312 jobs from Eastleigh in the south-east of England to Battipaglia in Southern Italy using GBP 50 million of an Italian Government grant.

I request that you urgently investigate the alleged misuse of these funds on the basis that Italy has attracted business from another Member State with the help of state funds.

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(8 May 2003)

(8 May 2003)

Community law does not prohibit companies operating in one or several Member States from reorganising their activities, and locating their investments according to their business interests.

On 2 October 2002, the Commission has approved aid in favour of Fibre Ottiche Sud for an investment in Battipaglia, southern Italy. This decision was taken on basis of the compliance of the project with the rules of the Multisectoral Framework on regional aid for large investment projects (1). For further information about this subject, the Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question E-3777/02 by Mr Huhne (2).

1

2

---

(1)  OJ C 107, 7.4.1998.

1

(2)  OJ C 280 E, 21.11.2003, p. 26.

2

---
SNYDER v. LEARNING SERVICES.

No. 16P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 11, 2008.

Jaye E. Bingham, Katherine Hilkey-Boyatt, Raleigh, for Learning Services.

David Kirby, William B. Bystrynski, Laurie Armstrong, Raleigh, for David Snyder.

Prior report: 187 N.C.App. 480, 653 S.E.2d 548.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 6th day of May 2008 by Defendants to Withdraw Petition for Discretionary Review:

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

MARTIN, J., recused.
STATE v. CHANDLER.

No. COA07-1254.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed July 1, 2008.

Certification Date July 21, 2008.

Appeal from Madison (06CRS50397, 06CRS50398).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 352/2014Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 352/2014 of 3 April 2014 approving non-minor amendments to the specification for            a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Queso de Murcia            (PDO))         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 352/2014                     

# of 3 April 2014

# approving non-minor amendments to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin                        and protected geographical indications (Queso de Murcia (PDO))                     

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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

Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality                           schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs(1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)By virtue of the first subparagraph of Article 53(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, the Commission has examined Spain's                              application for the approval of amendments to the specification for the protected designation of origin ’Queso de Murcia’,                              registered under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1097/2002(2).

(2)Since the amendments in question are not minor within the meaning of Article 53(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, the Commission                              published the amendment application in the *Official Journal of the European Union* (3) as required by Article 50(2)(a) of that Regulation.

(3)As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the amendments                              to the specification should be approved,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

The amendments to the specification published in the *Official Journal of the European Union* regarding the name contained in the Annex to this Regulation are hereby approved.                  

# Article 2U.K.

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*.                  

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 3 April 2014.

*For the Commission,*                            

*On behalf of the President,*                            

Dacian Cioloș                            

*Member of the Commission*                            

## ANNEXU.K.

Agricultural products intended for human consumption listed in Annex I to the Treaty:

### **Class 1.3. Cheeses**U.K.

#### SPAINU.K.

Queso de Murcia (PDO)

1

OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.                           

2

OJ L 166, 25.6.2002, p. 8.                           

3

OJ C 329, 13.11.2013, p. 4.
DUNCAN v. DUNCAN.

No. COA08-374.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed November 18, 2008.

Certification Date December 8, 2008.

Appeal from Macon (05CVD338).

Case reported without published opinion. Dismissed.
MARTIN v. AKURANG.

No. COA08-148.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed July 15, 2008.

Certification Date August 4, 2008.

Appeal from Guilford (04CVS9949).

Case reported without published opinion. Dismissed.
#### In the Matter of Modern Landfill, Inc., Appellant, v New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Respondent.

[801 NYS2d 214]

Appeal from a judgment (denominated order) of the Supreme Court, Niagara County (Amy J. Fricano, J.), entered December 20, 2004 in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78. The judgment granted respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to challenge respondent’s issuance of a positive declaration with respect to the application by petitioner to modify its solid waste landfill permit *(see*6 NYCRR 617.2 [ac]). Supreme Court properly granted respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition on the ground that the issuance of a posi*1382tive declaration is not a final agency action and thus is not ripe for judicial review *(see Matter of PVS Chems. [N.Y.] v New York State Dept. of Envtl. Conservation,*256 AD2d 1241 [1998]; *Matter of Rochester Tel. Mobile Communications v Ober,*251 AD2d 1053, 1054 [1998]). Contrary to the contention of petitioner, it did not sustain an actual, concrete injury as the result of the issuance of the positive declaration *(see Rochester Tel. Mobile Communications,*251 AD2d at 1054; *cf. Matter of Gordon v Rush,*100 NY2d 236, 242-243 [2003]). “Petitioner may well obtain approval of its . . . application following preparation of a [draft environmental impact statement] and thus, notwithstanding the considerable expenses and time associated with its preparation, it cannot be said that [respondent’s] issuance of this positive declaration constitutes a ‘definitive’ position on an issue which inflicts an actual, concrete injury” *(Matter of Sour Mtn. Realty v New York State Dept. of Envtl. Conservation,*260 AD2d 920, 922 [1999], *lv denied*93 NY2d 815 [1999]). Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J, Green, Gorski, Smith and Lawton, JJ.
STATE v. McDOUGALD.

No. COA07-273.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed February 5, 2008.

Certification Date February 25, 2008.

Appeal from Cumberland (05CRS65317).

Cases reported without published opinion. No error.
TURNER v. CUSTOM RETAIL SERVICES, INC.

No. COA08-300.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed December 2, 2008.

Certification Date December 22, 2008.

Appeal from NC Industrial Commission (I.C. NO. 497930).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
# C_2023338EN.01003301.xml

| 25.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 338/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 338/33

---

Action brought on 7 August 2023 — ePlus v EUIPO — Telefónica Germany (E-Plus)

(Case T-463/23)

(2023/C 338/43)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: ePlus Inc. (Herndon, Virginia, United States) (represented by: A. Mottet, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Telefónica Germany GmbH & Co. OHG (Munich, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark E-Plus — European Union trade mark No 17 781 791

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 June 2023 in Case R 951/2022-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant, including those incurred for the purposes of the proceedings before the Cancellation Division and the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO; |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant, including those incurred for the purposes of the proceedings before the Cancellation Division and the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO;

| — | order any intervener to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order any intervener to bear its own costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Insufficient assessment of genuine use and implications for bad faith assessment; |
| --- | --- |

—

Insufficient assessment of genuine use and implications for bad faith assessment;

| — | Misinterpretation of evidence pertaining to cessation of use; |
| --- | --- |

—

Misinterpretation of evidence pertaining to cessation of use;

| — | Disregard for proprietor’s discontinuation of use and implication for bad faith assessment. |
| --- | --- |

—

Disregard for proprietor’s discontinuation of use and implication for bad faith assessment.

---