alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# CE2004078EN.01069701.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/697 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/697

---

(2004/C 78 E/0745)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0120/03

by Jorge Hernández Mollar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 January 2003)

Subject:   Border fishing dispute at the mouth of the Guadiana

Subject:

The fishing dispute taking place at the mouth of the River Guadiana on the border between Spain and Portugal has reached such an intensity that fishermen from the coastal villages in Huelva (Spain) have complained that the Portuguese navy has fired shots at them.

It is for this reason that these Spanish fishermen have called for suspension of the current fishing agreement until the Portuguese navy undertakes not to open fire, because according to them it was a miracle that nobody died in the attacks by the Portuguese patrol-boat, which was ‘shooting to kill’.

Given the powers that the Commission has in the area of fisheries under the CFP, what initiatives has it taken to resolve this fishing dispute, how far will it intervene with the Portuguese authorities to prevent the Portuguese navy from continuing to fire on Huelva fishermen, and will it act as an arbitrator to find a compromise solution to the dispute?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(24 February 2003)

(24 February 2003)

The Commission has received no request from the national authorities to take any action over incidents that have occurred at the mouth of the Guadiana.

It falls to the national authorities to apply the Community or national rules in force and to their judicial bodies to impose penalties on those who break them.

In any case it goes without saying that the Commission wishes fishing in this zone to be conducted under satisfactory conditions for all parties.

---
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 176 (Tuesday, September 13, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54098-54099]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-18109]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 5187]


Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``Ewer''

AGENCY: Department of State.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 54099]]

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
[79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459], Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 [112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.], Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999 [64 FR 56014], Delegation of 
Authority No. 236 of October 19, 1999 [64 FR 57920], as amended, and 
Delegation of Authority No. 257 of April 15, 2003 [68 FR 19875], I 
hereby determine that the object to be included in the exhibition, 
``Ewer,'' imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the 
United States, is of cultural significance. The object is imported 
pursuant to a loan agreement with the foreign lender. I also determine 
that the exhibition or display of the exhibit object at the 
Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, New York, from on or about 
September 30, 2005, to on or about September 30, 2006, and at possible 
additional venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. 
Public Notice of these determinations is ordered to be published in the 
Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, contact Paul 
W. Manning, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, (202) 453-
8052, and the address is United States Department of State, SA-44, Room 
700, 301 4th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20547-0001.

    Dated: September 7, 2005.
C. Miller Crouch,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural 
Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 05-18109 Filed 9-12-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-08-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-29-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1999
<CASH>                                          64,463
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  384,597
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               491,165
<PP&E>                                         229,719
<DEPRECIATION>                                  21,240
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 932,228
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          865,034
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       179,734
<OTHER-SE>                                      67,194
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   932,228
<SALES>                                        811,077
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               811,077
<CGS>                                          468,796
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,402,822
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              24,499
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (2,070,571)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (2,070,571)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (2,070,571)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.13)


</TABLE>
# CE2004088EN.01038901.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/389 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/389

---

(2004/C 88 E/0395)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2177/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(30 June 2003)

Subject:   Procurement

Subject:

Will the Commission update its estimates of the proportion of the annual value of public contracts – broken down by capital and current spending – that are let to non-resident companies in each Member State?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(4 August 2003)

(4 August 2003)

In reply to the earlier written question E-0563/03 from the Honourable Member on public procurement (1), the Commission provided estimates of the value of direct and indirect intra-Community imports as a percentage of total procurement in 1998, provided by a business survey.

1

It also indicated that it was pursuing the possibility of incorporating this survey within the framework of the structural business statistics programme carried out by Eurostat together with the Member States' statistical institutes. Member States' statistical institutes have not proved willing to incorporate such a survey within this programme and the Commission is not so far in a position to update these estimates.

All the evidence suggests that within the Union public procurement market the number and value of direct imports, or public contracts let to non-resident companies, remains low, at a comparable level with earlier figures. Current work being undertaken for the Commission should provide some new data regarding cross border activity, prices, and the participation of small and mediu- sized enterprises in public procurement markets. For example, initial results of a recent pilot panel study of both suppliers to public authorities and public authorities themselves, undertaken for the Commission, suggests that indirect imports now account for an increased amount of overall public procurement at around 14 %. If confirmed, this would be a marked increase over the estimate of 8,5 % in 1998.

The preliminary results of this work, which still remain to be analysed in detail and confirmed, also suggest, that foreign owned subsidiaries, who are significant players in many public procurement markets, have had a rate of success in winning tenders comparable to that of domestic suppliers. The results also indicate a continued active interest on the part of Union firms in bidding for public procurement contracts in Member States other than their own.

The Commission will be happy to keep the Honourable Member informed of the final results of this work, which should be available by October 2003 in time to contribute to the annual report on the functioning of Community product and capital markets.

---

(1)  OJ C 330 E, 21.11.2000.

1

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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           2,160
<SECURITIES>                                     3,746
<RECEIVABLES>                                  148,118
<ALLOWANCES>                                    50,821
<INVENTORY>                                      7,941
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               125,920
<PP&E>                                         195,939
<DEPRECIATION>                                  42,094
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 396,558
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           48,235
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           483
<OTHER-SE>                                     284,967
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   396,558
<SALES>                                        211,925
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               229,970
<CGS>                                          197,030
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  197,030
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                48,015
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,896
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (17,971)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (5,594)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (12,377)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (12,377)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.25)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.25)
        

</TABLE>
STATE v. WILLIAMS.

No. COA07-438.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed November 20, 2007.

Certification Date December 10, 2007.

Appeal from Johnston (05CRS55240).

Cases reported without published opinion. No error.
Exhibit 32.1

                                  JETFLEET III

                    Certification of Chief Executive Officer
                  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted
            pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


In connection with this quarterly report of JetFleet III (the "Company") on Form
10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2003 (the "Report"), I, Neal D. Crispin,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof,
solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States
Code, that to the best of my knowledge:

              (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
              13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods
              indicated.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to JetFleet III and will be retained
by JetFleet III and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.

This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, "filed" with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.


Date: November 14, 2003              /s/  Neal D. Crispin
                                    --------------------------
                                    Neal D. Crispin
                                    President, Chief Financial Officer
STATE of North Carolina v. Allen BOYD, Jr.

No. 367P03-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 9, 2008.

Allen Boyd, Jr., Pro Se.

Amy C. Kunstling, Janette Sole, Assistant Attorney Generals, Locke Bell, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 9th day of September 2008 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

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

(2004/C 65 E/122)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2072/03

by Brigitte Langenhagen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 June 2003)

Subject:   Rules on ships' crews

National legislation in Denmark on the national fleet makes it impossible for a German master, for instance, to find employment on a Danish-flagged vessel. For mariners, this very much constrains the freedom of movement for workers which is enshrined in the European Treaties. Many European mariners, particularly those from countries with small fleets, have no alternative but to switch to vessels flying flags of convenience, with corresponding loss of prestige and poorer working conditions and pay.

The Commission:

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(29 August 2003)

The Commission would like to give the following information:

----

(1)OJ C 301 E, 5.12.2002.

(2)  Case C-405/01 Colegio de Oficiales de la Marina Mercante Española v. Administración del Estado and Case C-47/02 Albert Anker v. Federal Republic of Germany; the Advocate General gave her conclusions on both cases on the 12.6.2003.

(3)  COM(89) 266, OJ C 263, 16.10.1989 - COM(91) 483, OJ C 19, 25.1.1992.

----
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed April 6, 2022.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D20-332

Lower Tribunal No. 10-1135-K

________________

Francis P. Dudlar, et al.,

Appellants,

vs.

Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., etc.,

Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Monroe County, Timothy J. 

Koenig, Judge.

Wesoloski Carlson, P.A., and Erik D. Wesoloski, for appellants.

McCalla Raymer Liebert Pierce, LLC, and Charles P. Gufford 

(Orlando), for appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ, C.J., and EMAS and LOBREE, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See § 45.031(1)(a),(7), Fla. Stat. (2014); § 45.032(1)(b), Fla. 
2

Stat. (2014) (“‘Subordinate lienholder’ means the holder of a subordinate lien 

shown on the face of the pleadings as an encumbrance on the property. . . . 

A subordinate lienholder includes, but is not limited to, a subordinate 

mortgage . . . .”); Household Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Bank of Am., N.A., 883 So. 

2d 346, 348 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (“Bank of America was named as a 

defendant in the mortgage foreclosure as a junior mortgagee. It was entitled 

to assert its claim to the surplus proceeds.”); see also JP Morgan Chase 

Bank v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 929 So. 2d 651, 653-54 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) 

(stating rule that “foreclosure of the first [lien] did not extinguish the second; 

it merely transferred the lien from the property to the surplus funds that took 

its place” and that “a surplus is payable to junior lienholders in accordance 

with their priority”).
# C_2023329EN.01003101.xml

| 18.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/31

---

Action brought on 27 July 2023 — DZ Hyp v SRB

(Case T-443/23)

(2023/C 329/43)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: DZ Hyp AG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: H. Berger, M. Weber and D. Schoo, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 2 May 2023 on the calculation of the 2023 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/2023/23) together with annexes, at least in so far as the contested decision together with Annexes I, II and III concern the applicant’s contribution, |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 2 May 2023 on the calculation of the 2023 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/2023/23) together with annexes, at least in so far as the contested decision together with Annexes I, II and III concern the applicant’s contribution,

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

—

order the SRB to pay the costs.

In the alternative, in the event that the Court takes the view that the contested decision is legally non-existent as a result of the use of the incorrect official language by the SRB and the action for annulment would therefore be inadmissible on the ground that it would be devoid of purpose, the applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that the contested decision is legally non-existent; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the contested decision is legally non-existent;

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

—

order the SRB to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on nine pleas in law which are identical to those relied on in Case T-440/23, Berlin Hyp v SRB.

---
# The Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) (Amendment) Regulations 2014 (revoked)

        - Previous
        - Next

E+W+S

Statutory Instruments

# 2014 No. 2890

Environmental Protection

# The Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) (Amendment) Regulations 2014 (revoked)F1

Made

29th October 2014

Laid before Parliament

3rd November 2014

Coming into force

24th November 2014

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

F1Regulations revoked (20.12.2016) by The Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) (Amendment) Regulations 2016 (S.I. 2016/1146), regs. 1, **3**

## F1EXPLANATORY NOTE                  

(This note is not part of the Regulations)

These Regulations amend the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 2007 (“the 2007 Regulations”). The 2007 Regulations impose on producers the obligation to recover and recycle packaging waste in order to attain the                     recovery and recycling targets set out in Article 6(1) of Council Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste (OJ No. L 365, 31.12.1994, p.10, as last amended by Commission Directive 2013/2/EU (OJ No. L 37, 8.2.2013, p.10-12)). These Regulations change the recycling and the recycling by re-melt targets for glass                     for the years 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017.                  

A full impact assessment of the effect that this instrument will have on the costs of business and the voluntary sector is                     available at www.gov.uk/defra and is annexed to the Explanatory Memorandum which is available alongside the instrument at www.legislation.gov.uk.
IN RE D.I.M.

No. COA08-493.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed September 16, 2008.

Certification Date October 6, 2008.

Appeal from Wake (07JT48).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
<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-Q FOR THE YEAR-TO-DATE AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          51,357
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    118,894
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               401,292
<PP&E>                                       3,998,721
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,667,036
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,028,730
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,683,135
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        26,479
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,811,371
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,028,730
<SALES>                                      2,277,860
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,277,860
<CGS>                                        2,096,702
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,096,702
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               146,110
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              27,617
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,431
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,431
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,431
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00
        

</TABLE>