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

(2004/C 84 E/0554)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1857/03

by Brian Simpson (PSE) to the Commission

(3 June 2003)

Subject:   Protecting slots for regional air routes

Could the Commission clarify the position in regard to how regional air routes can have their slots protected under the current air slot regulations?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(7 July 2003)

Community law provides for the protection of regional services in two ways. Firstly, the Community rules on market access (Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 of 23 July 1992 on access for Community air carriers to intra-Community air routes (1), Article 4) provide for governments to be able to impose the so-called public service obligations on routes within the Community in the periphery and the regions, for which air transport is vital for their development. For routes where a public obligation has been imposed and which are domestic, the Community rules on slot allocation (Council Regulation (EEC) No 95/93 of 18 January 1993 on common rules for the allocation of slots at Community airports (2)) provide that Member States may reserve slots at fully coordinated airports (Article 9 § 1 (b) of the Regulation). For non-domestic routes, where a public service obligation has been imposed, there is no possibility to reserve slots. Secondly, for routes, which do not benefit from a public service obligation but connect regional airports on the territory of a Member State with a fully coordinated airport, the rules on slot allocation (Article 9 § 1 (a) and § 3 of the Regulation) give Member States the right to reserve slots only under certain conditions. Accordingly, slots for such routes could be reserved, only if the routes in question were operated in 1993, when the slot Regulation entered into force, and if the Member State concerned had communicated the list of the routes benefiting from this regime.

----

(1)OJ L 240, 24.8.1992.

(2)OJ L 14, 22.1.1993.

----
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.80

                                   AGREEMENT

The Parties to this Agreement are:

Floridino's, Inc. (aka Floridino's Cafe) and Rockets Red Glare, Inc. (aka
Rockets).

                             CONSIDERATION AND TERMS

Floridino's Cafe agrees to provide all food services to Barnes and Noble
pursuant to its Agreement. Floridino's Cafe hereby contracts with Rockets to
provide all food services to Barnes and Noble including preparation, packaging
and delivery.

FURTHER, commencing November 1, 2000, Floridino's agrees to remit and Rockets
agrees to accept a three (3) percent discount on all its invoices billed to
Floridino's Cafe by Rockets pursuant to the Barnes and Noble Contract.

__________________________________               _______________________________
Floridino's Inc.                                 Date

__________________________________               _______________________________
Rockets Red Glare, Inc.                          Date
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION

            Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
                    (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350,
                   Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)

     Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a)
and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), the
undersigned officer of Western Wireless Corporation, a Washington corporation
(the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:

     The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for the three and six months ended June
     30, 2004 (the "Form 10-Q/A") of the Company fully complies with the
     requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
     1934 and information contained in the Form 10-Q/A fairly presents, in all
     material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
     Company.

Dated:  November 15, 2004

                                           By:     /s/ M. WAYNE WISEHART
                                                   -----------------------------
                                                   M. Wayne Wisehart
                                                   Executive Vice President and
                                                   Chief Financial Officer

     The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350,
Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code).
# Commission Regulation (EU) No 1134/2014Show full title

Commission Regulation (EU) No 1134/2014 of 23 October 2014 establishing a prohibition of fishing for haddock in VIIb-k, VIII,            IX and X; Union waters of CECAF 34.1.1 by vessels flying the flag of Belgium         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Regulation (EU) No 1134/2014                     

# of 23 October 2014

# establishing a prohibition of fishing for haddock in VIIb-k, VIII, IX and X; Union waters of CECAF 34.1.1 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, 23 October 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).
EXHIBIT 12.(a).2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

I, Asaf Alperovitz, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F 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):

<PAGE>


     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: March 30, 2006

/s/ Asaf Alperovitz
-----------------------
Asaf Alperovitz
Chief Financial Officer
SKERRETT v. SKERRETT.

No. COA08-494.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed December 16, 2008.

Certification Date January 5, 2009.

Appeal from Transylvania (07CVD473).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**RECKSONOPERATING PARTNERSHIP, L. P.**

 

**Certificationof Gregory F. Hughes, Treasurer of Wyoming Acquisition GP LLC, the sole generalpartner of the Registrant, pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title18**

**ofthe United States Code**

 

I, Gregory F.Hughes,Treasurer of Wyoming Acquisition GP LLC, the sole general partner of RecksonOperating Partnership, L. P. (the “Company”), certify pursuant to section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

 

1)         The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qof the Company for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2009 (the “Report”)fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

 

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

 
| Dated: May 15,  2009 |   |                                        |
|---------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------|
|                      | By     | /s/  GREGORY F. HUGHES                      |
|                      |   | Gregory  F. Hughes                          |
|                      |   | Treasurer                                   |
|                      |   | of  Wyoming Acquisition GP LLC,             |
|                      |   | the  sole general partner of the Registrant |

 

----
----

----

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

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

|                                      |                                                                                                                                           |   |
|-------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Date:  June 23,  2011 |   /s/ David K. Young                                                                                                                      |   |
|                                      | David K. Young                                                                                                                                 |   |
|                                      | President, Chief Operating Officer and Acting Chief Financial Officer (Principal  Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer) |   |

----

----
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

**MARTHA J. COWDEN AND CARY DWAYNE COWDEN,** 

**Petitioners**

**v.**

**SUNOCO PIPELINE, L.P.,**

**Respondent :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 180 WAL 2016** 

**Petition for Allowance of Appeal from**

**the Order of the Commonwealth Court**

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 13th day of September, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of** 

**Appeal is** DENIED

**.**
Mary Frances POWE, Employee v. CENTERPOINT HUMAN SERVICES, Employer Brentwood Services, Carrier.

No. 286P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 6, 2008.

Kathleen G. Sumner, Greensboro, for Powe.

L. Stephen Kushner, Charlotte, for Human Services, et al.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 18th day of June 2007 by Plaintiff in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 6th day of March 2008."
----

(2004/C 33 E/061)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0658/03

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 March 2003)

Subject:   UN Security Council Resolutions on Iraq and the use of force

The Conclusions of the European Council of 17 February 2003 declare, inter alia, that Baghdad must ‘disarm and co-operate immediately and fully’, that the Union's objective for Iraq ‘remains full and effective disarmament in accordance with the relevant UNSC resolutions, in particular resolution 1441’, and that the Council pledges its ‘full support to the (UN Security) Council in discharging its responsibilities’.

Resolution 1441 makes reference to a number of previous UNSC resolutions pertaining to Iraq including 678 (1990) and 687 (1991). Although principally concerned with the liberation of Kuwait, Paragraph 2 of Resolution 678 reads as follows:

Paragraph 3 of the same resolution continues:

UN Security Council Resolution 687, whilst reaffirming ‘the need to be assured of Iraq's peaceful intentions’, required Iraq to unconditionally accept the destruction or removal of all biological and chemical weapons as well as research and manufacturing facilities and to accept immediate on-site inspections of its chemical, biological and missile capabilities by UNSCOM.

Does the Commission accept that Iraq's longstanding failure to co-operate with the U.N. in accounting fully for its weapons of mass destruction and the continued threat to regional security which this presents mean that international peace and security have not yet been restored to the area? If so, does the Commission accept that resolutions 678, 687 and 1441 provide an adequate legal basis for armed intervention in the event that Iraq continues to fail to co-operate with the UN in accounting for its stocks of biological and chemical weapons?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(25 March 2003)

As already stated in previous Council declarations as well as in the last European Council conclusions of 17 February 2003, the Commission agrees that Iraq failed to comply with several United Nations Security Council resolutions from 1991 onwards.

The Commission believes that it is the responsibility of the United Nations Security Council to decide whether the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 provides or not the adequate legal basis for armed intervention. The Commission upholds the authority of the United Nations Security Council as the competent body to provide the adequate interpretation of these resolutions, and to answer the questions the Honourable Member raised.

----
Freeman HANKINS v. Robert COOPER-Avery Mitchell Corr. Ctr., Spruce Pine, NC 28657.

No. 523P06-5.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 9, 2008.

Freeman Hankins, Pro Se.

Robert Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of NC.

*27*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the application filed by Defendant on the 24th day of September 2008 in this matter for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to G.S. Sec. 17-b and N.C. Const. Art. 1.5.8-S.21, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Brunswick County:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th day of October 2008."

Upon consideration of the application filed by Plaintiff on the 24th day of September 2008 in this matter for Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to G.S. Sec. 17-b Const. Art. 1.5.18-S.21 in Appropriate Circumstances, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Brunswick County:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th day of October 2008."
STATE of North Carolina v. Darius Dashawn RUTLEDGE.

No. 184P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 11, 2008.

Rudolph A. Ashton, III, New Bern, for Rutledge.

Charles E. Reece, Assistant Attorney General, R. Stuart Albright, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 21st day of April 2008 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 11th day of June 2008."
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

                    CNA SURETY CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
                         EARNINGS PER SHARE COMPUTATION
                 (AMOUNTS IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)

<Table>
<Caption>
                                                    YEAR ENDED           YEAR ENDED           YEAR ENDED
                                                 DECEMBER 31, 2001    DECEMBER 31, 2000    DECEMBER 31, 1999
                                                 -----------------    -----------------    -----------------
<S>                                              <C>                  <C>                  <C>
Net Income...................................         $36,908              $53,602              $56,498
                                                      =======              =======              =======
Shares:
Weighted average shares outstanding..........          42,706               42,889               43,957
  Weighted average shares of options
     exercised...............................              38                    9                   17
                                                      -------              -------              -------
Total weighted average shares outstanding....          42,744               42,898               43,974
  Effect of dilutive options.................             194                  130                  146
                                                      -------              -------              -------
Total weighted average shares outstanding,
  assuming dilution..........................          42,938               43,028               44,120
                                                      =======              =======              =======
Earnings per share...........................         $  0.86              $  1.25              $  1.28
                                                      =======              =======              =======
Earnings per share, assuming dilution........         $  0.86              $  1.25              $  1.28
                                                      =======              =======              =======
</Table>
COOKE v. COOKE.

No. 418P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 24, 2008.

K. Edward Greene, Tobias S. Hampson, Raleigh, for Susan Cooke.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 11th day of September 2007 by Plaintiff to Withdraw Petition:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference this the 24th day of January 2008."
# CE2004065EN.01006001.xml

| 13.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 65/60 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 65/60

---

(2004/C 65 E/062)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1041/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(28 March 2003)

Subject:   Use of funds from the Leader+ programme by the municipality of Pesaro

Subject:

In September 2002, the monitoring committee of the Italian Ministry for Economic Affairs issued a report on the spending of EU funds.

The report reveals the alarming slowness and inefficiency with which EU funds are allocated to projects by some regional authorities.

The grave concerns about the inadequate use of European funds by local authorities have frequently been echoed by the Commission.

Bearing in mind that some local authorities, such as the municipality of Pesaro, urgently need to use European funds to support innovative rural development measures aimed at enhancing the cultural and natural heritage, creating new jobs by strengthening the local economy and improving the organisational capacity of rural communities,

can the Commission state:

| 1. | whether the municipality of Pesaro has submitted projects for the Leader+ programme? |
| --- | --- |

1.

whether the municipality of Pesaro has submitted projects for the Leader+ programme?

| 2. | whether the municipality of Pesaro has secured funding for these projects? |
| --- | --- |

2.

whether the municipality of Pesaro has secured funding for these projects?

| 3. | whether this funding has been used? |
| --- | --- |

3.

whether this funding has been used?

---
STATE of North Carolina v. Gregory Jamar LEE.

No. 206P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 26, 2008.

Constance Widenhouse, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Lee.

Jonathan Babb, Special Deputy Attorney General, David Saacks, District Attorney, for State of NC.

Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ___, 658 S.E.2d 294.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 2nd day of May 2008 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 26th day of August 2008."