alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 99.1

                                 CERTIFICATION

I, Charles M. Weaver, certify that:

     1.   I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K in respect of the
          S&P-Linked Investment Trust Certificates, Series 1997-SP-1 Trust
          (the "Trust");

     2.   Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports 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
          as of the last day of the period covered by this annual report;

     3.   Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information
          required to be provided to the Depositor by the Trustee under the
          pooling and servicing or similar agreement, for inclusion in these
          reports is included in these reports; and

     4.   I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the
          Depositor and the Trustee under the pooling and servicing or similar
          agreement and based upon my knowledge and the annual compliance
          review required under that agreement, and except as disclosed in the
          reports, the Depositor and Trustee have each fulfilled its
          obligations under that agreement.

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information
provided to me by the following unaffiliated party: The Bank of New York, as
Trustee.



Date: March 28, 2005


      /s/ Charles M. Weaver
---------------------------------
Charles M. Weaver, Vice President
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Arnold Fordham, Appellant.

[801 NYS2d 155]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Gary, J.), rendered July 3, 2002, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

A trial court is not precluded from using hypothetical examples in its jury instructions to assist the jury in understanding the applicable law *(see People v Johnson,*255 AD2d 337 [1998]; *People v Wise,*204 AD2d 133, 134-135 [1994]). However, the hypotheticals must be fair and balanced, must not indicate to the jury that the trial court has an opinion as to the defendant’s guilt or innocence, and must not present factual patterns that are strikingly similar to the defendant’s case *(see People v Hommel,*41 NY2d 427 [1977]; *People v Johnson, supra; People v Calix,*236 AD2d 550 [1997]). Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the hypothetical example used by the trial court in this case was proper.

The defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Adams, J.P., Mastro, Lifson and Lunn, JJ., concur.
HALL v. CITY OF ASHEVILLE.

No. COA07-1520.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed August 5, 2008.

Certification Date August 25, 2008.

Appeal from Buncombe (05CVS3804, 05CVS3805).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
# CE2004078EN.01034201.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/342 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/342

---

(2004/C 78 E/0360)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1897/01

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 June 2001)

Subject:   The legal basis for the Commission's proposals on the setting-up and funding of pan-European political parties

Subject:

Could the Commission state which articles in the Consolidated Treaties constitute the legal basis for the Commission's proposals on the setting-up and funding of pan-European political parties?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(11 July 2001)

(11 July 2001)

The Commission proposal is based on Article 308 of the EC Treaty.

---
FAIRVIEW DEVELOPERS, INC. and J.C.H. Holdings, LLC v. Mickey MILLER.

No. 585P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 24, 2008.

Matthew Smith, for Fairview Developers, et. al.

Richard Fennell, Preston O. Odom, III, Charlotte, for Miller.

S. Stephen Goodwin, Jr., Indian Trail, for Fairview Developers, et al.

Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ____, 652 S.E.2d 365.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 10th day of December 2007 by Plaintiffs 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 24th day of January 2008."
# Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/2370 (repealed)Show full title

Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/2370 of 26 November 2015 adopting a ninth update of the list of sites of Community            importance for the Alpine biogeographical region (notified under document C(2015) 8206) (repealed)         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/2370                     

# of 26 November 2015

# adopting a ninth update of the list of sites of Community importance for the Alpine biogeographical region

# *(notified under document C(2015) 8206)* (repealed)                     

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

Textual Amendments

F1Repealed by Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/2332 of 9 December 2016 adopting a 10th update of the list of sites of Community                                 importance for the Alpine biogeographical region (notified under document C(2016) 8185).
IN RE SULLIVAN.

No. COA08-635.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed February 3, 2009.

Certification Date February 23, 2009.

Appeal from Property Tax Commission (07PTC280).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
GREEN v. SOMMERS

No. S08A0907.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

June 2, 2008.

Judgments affirmed without opinion (Supreme Court Rule 59).
# CE2004088EN.01001901.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/19

---

(2004/C 88 E/0018)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1142/03

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 April 2003)

Subject:   Protection of archaeological museum exhibits in Iraq

Subject:

According to the Greek press, the National Archaeological Museum of Iraq is regarded as one of the most important archaeological museums in the Middle East, the other being situated in Cairo. The National Archaeological Museum of Iraq was open for only two years following damage sustained during the ‘Desert Storm’ operation in 1991 and a few days ago it once more closed down following the threat of further attack. The museum contains exhibits from the prehistoric age and from Sumerian, Acadian, Babylonian, Assyrian, Chaldean and other civilisations.

When the destruction of cultural treasures in Afghanistan was being witnessed by the international community, I submitted a question to the Commission (P-0822/01) (1) asking what it thought of the idea of setting up a special EU fund for buying up cultural treasures threatened with destruction and whether funds were available to protect the world's cultural heritage. In reply I was informed that ‘the budget of the Community does not contain provision for the funding of measures destined to protect the world cultural heritage and that there are at present no plans by the Community to create a special fund to buy cultural treasures threatened with destruction’.

1

Given the probability of further destruction of treasures forming part of the world's cultural heritage, how does the Commission now view the idea of setting up such a fund? What measures will it take to protect the cultural treasures of the National Archaeological Museum of Iraq from destruction as a result of the war?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(6 May 2003)

(6 May 2003)

The Commission expresses deep concern for the suffering provoked by the conflict to the Iraqi population. It is also concerned about physical damages to the infrastructures and buildings, including cultural treasures. After the pillage and the destruction of a large number of archaeological treasures in the Museums of Baghdad, Tikrit and Mossoul, the Commission hopes that all measures will be taken so that further destruction is avoided.

As already explained in the context of the conflict in Afghanistan, the EU has not foreseen the creation of a special fund for the preservation of cultural treasures from destruction in a third country. Possible intervention in this area could take place only in the framework of potential EU involvement in the reconstruction of Iraq, and in line with the priorities of intervention identified, following the assessment of needs and damages.

---

(1)  OJ C 261 E, 18.9.2001, p. 202.

1

---
In the Matter of K.S. and J.S. appealed by Mother.

No. 122P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 27, 2007.

Annick Lenoir-Peek, Houston, TX, for Mother.

Deanna F. Swain, for Amy Willard.

Matthew S. Lilly, Washington, for Judson Scherer.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 9th day of March 2007 by Respondent (Mother) 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 27th day of June 2007."
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          35,688
<SECURITIES>                                    14,686
<RECEIVABLES>                                   16,216
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,740)
<INVENTORY>                                     92,572
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               164,169
<PP&E>                                          59,033
<DEPRECIATION>                                (13,336)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 217,093
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           14,320
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           399
<OTHER-SE>                                     200,901
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   217,093
<SALES>                                         92,190
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                92,190
<CGS>                                           83,156
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   29,610
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (1,562)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 363
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (19,377)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (8,472)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (10,905)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (10,905)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.27)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.27)


</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 22 - 0042 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. JOH NATHAN ALBERT BERTSCH,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including October 18 , 2023, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

September 11 2023

09/11/2023
Case Number: DA 22-0042
#### St. Luke’s Roosevelt Hospital, as Assignee of Michele Carias, et al., Appellants, v Blue Ridge Insurance Company, Respondent.

[801 NYS2d 617]

In an action to recover no-fault medical payments, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Jonas, J.), dated August 20, 2004, which granted the defendant’s motion to vacate a judgment of the same court entered April 30, 2004, upon its default in opposing the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the judgment is reinstated.

A defendant seeking to vacate a judgment entered upon default is required to demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the default and the existence of a meritorious defense *(see*CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; *Carnazza v Shoprite of Staten Is.,*12 AD3d 393 [2004]; *Henry v Kuveke,*9 AD3d 476 [2004]; *Weekes v Karayianakis,*304 AD2d 561 [2003]). The defendant failed to do either. *947The defense counsel’s excuse of law office failure was conclusory and devoid of any detailed factual allegations, and thus did not constitute a reasonable excuse *(see Fekete v Camp Skwere,*16 AD3d 544 [2005]; *Juarbe v City of New York,*303 AD2d 462 [2003]; *Morris v Metropolitan Transp. Auth.,*191 AD2d 682 [1993]).

In addition, the defendant failed to present a meritorious defense to the action. Contrary to the defendant’s contention, written proof of claim on behalf of Michele Carias was timely submitted to it within 180 days after the date the services were rendered, as required pursuant to 11 NYCRR 65.12 *(see New York Hosp. Med. Ctr. of Queens v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp.,*12 AD3d 429 [2004]; *Montefiore Med. Ctr. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co.,*9 AD3d 354 [2004]). The affidavit submitted by the defendant’s claims representative was insufficient to demonstrate that the injuries for which Carias was treated did not arise out of an insured incident *(see New York Hosp. Med. Ctr. of Queens v Insurance Co. of State of Pa.,*16 AD3d 391 [2005]; *Santiago v Sansue Realty Corp.,*243 AD2d 622, 623 [1997]; *Peacock v Kalikow,*239 AD2d 188 [1997]). Moreover, the defendant’s submissions failed to demonstrate that it denied Mario Delgado’s claim for no-fault medical payments within the 30-day period prescribed by Insurance Law § 5106 (a) and 11 NYCRR 65.15 (g) (3) *(see New York Hosp. Med. Ctr. of Queens v Insurance Co. of State of Pa., supra; Nyack Hosp. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,*11 AD3d 664 [2004]). Accordingly, the defendant’s motion to vacate the judgment entered upon its default in opposing the motion for summary judgment should have been denied *(see Presbyterian Hosp. in City of N.Y. v New York Cent. Mut. Ins. Co.,*277 AD2d 299, 300 [2000]). Prudenti, P.J., Schmidt, Santucci, Luciano and Spolzino, JJ., concur.
# C_2023216EN.01005002.xml

| 19.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 216/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 216/50

---

Action brought on 21 April 2023 — Clofor v EUIPO — Sitges Alonso (Posts)

(Case T-208/23)

(2023/C 216/66)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Clofor (Renage, France) (represented by: P. Debré, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Paul Sitges Alonso (Barcelona, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant

Design at issue: Community design (Posts) — Community design No 2 951 335-0001

Proceedings before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 February 2023 in Case R 1103/2022-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | amend the contested decision in such a way as to reject the application for declaration of invalidity of Community design No 2 951 335-0001; |
| --- | --- |

—

amend the contested decision in such a way as to reject the application for declaration of invalidity of Community design No 2 951 335-0001;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred before the Third Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred before the Third Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 25(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002, read in conjunction with Article 7 of that regulation; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 25(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002, read in conjunction with Article 7 of that regulation;

| — | Reversal of the burden of proof and infringement of Article 52(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002. |
| --- | --- |

—

Reversal of the burden of proof and infringement of Article 52(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002.

---
# Citizenship (Armed Forces) Act 2014

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Citizenship (Armed Forces) Act 2014

# 2014 CHAPTER 8

An Act to make provision in connection with applications for naturalisation as a British citizen made by members or former                        members of the armed forces.                     

[13th March 2014]

Be it enacted by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons,                           in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—                        

## 1Applications for citizenship by members or former members of armed forcesU.K.

(1)Schedule 1 to the British Nationality Act 1981 (requirements for naturalisation as a British citizen under section 6(1) of                        that Act) is amended in accordance with subsections (2) and (3).                  

(2)Paragraph 2 becomes sub-paragraph (1) of that paragraph.                  

(3)After that sub-paragraph insert—                  

“(2)Sub-paragraph (3) applies in a case where, on the date of the application, the applicant is or has been a member of the armed                           forces.                  

(3)If in the special circumstances of the particular case the Secretary of State thinks fit, he may for the purposes of paragraph                           1 treat the applicant as fulfilling the requirement specified in paragraph 1(2)(a) although the applicant was not in the United                           Kingdom at the beginning of the period there mentioned.”                  

(4)In section 39 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 (which contains further amendments of paragraph 2 of Schedule                        1 to the British Nationality Act 1981)—                  

(a)in subsection (4) for the words from the beginning to “paragraph)” substitute “ In sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 2 of that Schedule ”;                  

(b)in subsection (9) for the words “After that sub-paragraph insert” substitute “ For sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) of paragraph 2 substitute ”.                  

## 2Citation, commencement and extentU.K.

(1)This Act may be cited as the Citizenship (Armed Forces) Act 2014.                  

(2)This Act comes into force at the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which it is passed.                  

(3)This Act extends to—                  

(a)England and Wales,                  

(b)Scotland,                  

(c)Northern Ireland,                  

(d)the Channel Islands,                  

(e)the Isle of Man, and                  

(f)the British overseas territories.
# C_2023173EN.01002702.xml

| 15.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 173/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 173/27

---

Action brought on 24 March 2023 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic

(Case C-191/23)

(2023/C 173/38)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: C. Hermes and L. Santiago de Albuquerque, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Portuguese Republic

The applicant’s claims

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| 1. | declare that the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13(2) and (5) of Regulation (EU) No 1143/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2014 on the prevention and management of the introduction and spread of invasive alien species (1) by failing to establish and implement action plans that comply with the requirements specified in Article 13 of that regulation and to transmit them to the Commission without delay; |
| --- | --- |

1.

declare that the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13(2) and (5) of Regulation (EU) No 1143/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2014 on the prevention and management of the introduction and spread of invasive alien species (1) by failing to establish and implement action plans that comply with the requirements specified in Article 13 of that regulation and to transmit them to the Commission without delay;

| 2. | order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

According to Article 13(2) and (5) of Regulation No 1143/2014, the Portuguese Republic had three years from the adoption of the list of invasive alien species of Union concern (‘the Union list’) to establish, implement and transmit to the Commission action plans to address the priority pathways of unintentional introduction and spread of those species in its territory and marine waters.

The Portuguese Republic identified eleven priority pathways covered by seven proposed action plans.

However, the Portuguese Republic has not indicated the anticipated date for the completion and approval of those plans, nor has it transmitted them to the Commission.

---

(1)  OJ 2014 L 317, p. 35.

---