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

(2004/C 65 E/173)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2459/03

by Concepció Ferrer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(23 July 2003)

Subject:   Southern European rail network

It emerges from recent studies state that the proportion of goods transported by rail in Europe fell from 21 % to 8,1 % over the period 1970-2000. The beneficiary has been the road haulage sector, which offers a number of advantages over rail, including greater convenience of delivery.

Under Articles 154 and 155 of the EC Treaty, it is incumbent on the Community to contribute to the establishment and development of trans-European transport networks.

As rail is by far the more environment-friendly transport means, the Commission has committed itself to revitalising the rail sector under the Union's common transport policy.

What measures are being taken to ensure the future of rail freight over the Pyrenees?

What measures are being taken to ensure that the Pyrenees rail freight service is competitive with other modes of transport, especially road haulage?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(12 September 2003)

Revitalising rail freight is a real necessity throughout the Union and is one of the key priorities of the Union's common transport policy. The Union is anxious to create an integrated railway area in which rail transport can once again become efficient and competitive, especially for freight. Its new initiatives and measures already being applied are serving to integrate the national rail systems. This integration hinges on developing the interoperability of the high-speed and conventional rail systems, a particularly important objective given the very different characteristics of the existing Spanish and French networks.

Accordingly, in a bid to make rail freight more attractive the Community is helping to finance projects which will increase the capacity of the lines linking the Iberian peninsula to the rest of Europe via the Pyrenees. In particular, the Community has provided support from the trans-European transport network (TEN-T) budget, equivalent to 10 % of the overall project cost, for building the Perpignan-Figueras section of the new standard European gauge line which will link Barcelona and its region to the French network. This new line, which will be open to use by both freight and passenger trains, should come into service in 2008-2009 and will allow significant time gains at the border by precluding the need to change axles there.

Priority project No 3 (TGV South), of which the Perpignan-Figueras section forms one part, also involves an upgrading of the line on French territory, between Perpignan, Montpellier and Nîmes, the studies for which are also being co-financed from the TEN-T budget. A new line is due to be built on this route by 2015, and this will free up major capacity — especially for freight trains — on the existing line.

The Commission would further point out that the priority TEN-T projects it has proposed also include the central rail crossing of the Pyrenees and the Iberian high-speed network. Parliament has already approved this proposal at first reading.

----
# Commission Regulation (EU) No 274/2014Show full title

Commission Regulation (EU) No 274/2014 of 14 March 2014 correcting the Lithuanian language version of Regulation (EU) No 432/2012            establishing a list of permitted health claims made on foods, other than those referring to the reduction of disease risk            and to children’s development and health (Text with EEA relevance)         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Regulation (EU) No 274/2014                     

# of 14 March 2014

# correcting the Lithuanian language version of Regulation (EU) No 432/2012 establishing a list of permitted health claims made                        on foods, other than those referring to the reduction of disease risk and to children’s development and health                     

# (Text with EEA relevance)

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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

Having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on nutrition                           and health claims made on foods(1), and in particular Article 13(3) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)There are errors in the Lithuanian language version of Commission Regulation (EU) No 432/2012(2) which should be corrected. Due to the high number of repetitive corrections, the Annex in the Lithuanian language version                              should be replaced in full. The other language versions are not affected.

(2)Regulation (EU) No 432/2012 should therefore be corrected accordingly.

(3)The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain                              and Animal Health,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

*Concerns only the Lithuanian language version.*                   

# 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, 14 March 2014.

*For the Commission*                            

*The President*                            

José Manuel Barroso                            

1

OJ L 404, 30.12.2006, p. 9.                           

2

Commission Regulation (EU) No 432/2012 of 16 May 2012 establishing a list of permitted health claims made on foods, other                              than those referring to the reduction of disease risk and to children’s development and health (OJ L 136, 25.5.2012, p. 1).
Daniel Joseph TRUHAN, Plaintiff v. Susan P. WALSTON and David M. Walston, Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiff, Susan P. Walston v. North Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company, United Services Automobile Association, and Western Surety Company, Third-Party Defendants.

No. 364P14.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 10, 2015.

Ann C. Ochsner, Raleigh, Donald E. Clark, Jr., Goldsboro, for Walston, Susan P.

Bryan T. Simpson, Natalia K. Isenberg, Raleigh, for Truhan, Daniel, et al.

Timothy W. Wilson, Rocky Mount, for North Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company.

M. Greg Crumpler, Rocky Mount, for United Services Automobile Association.

Donald E. Clark, Jr., Goldsboro, for Walston, David M.

James D. Secor, III, for Argonaut Great Central Insurance Company.

Jonathan M. Smith, Goldsboro.

Fred Baggett, for N.C. Association of Chiefs of Police.

Amy Y. Bason, General Counsel, for N.C. Association of County Commissioners.

Wanda M. Copley, County Attorney, Sharon J. Huffman, Assistant County Attorney, for New Hanover County.

Lowell L. Siler, Durham, for Durham County.

Angela I. Carmon, for City of Winston Salem.

R. Michael Cox, Pasquotank County Attorney, for Pasquotank County Debra Bechtel, for Catawba County.

Sam Shames, for Gaston County.

John F. Henning, Jr., Franklin, for Town of Franklin.

Wesley L. Deaton, for Lincoln County.

Huey B. Marshall, Bolivia, for Brunswick County.

Edmond W. Caldwell, Jr., Executive Vice President and General Counsel, for N.C. Sheriffs' Association.

Leon M. Killian, III, for Haywood County.

Chester M. Jones, for Macon County.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 20th of October 2014 by Third-Party Defendants (United Services Automobile Association and North Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company) 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 10th of June 2015."
STATE of North Carolina v. Drellco Lamont HUNTER.

No. 518P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 26, 2008.

James R. Parish, Fayetteville, for Hunter.

Joan M. Cunningham, Assistant Attorney General, Peter S. Gilchrist, III, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 23rd day of October 2007 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, 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."
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 21.1


                           Province Healthcare Company
                                  Subsidiaries


Brim Healthcare, Inc.
Brim Hospitals, Inc.
Care Health Company, Inc.
Mexia Principal Healthcare Limited Partnership
Mexia-Principal, Inc.
*Outpatient Services, Inc.
Palestine-Principal G.P., Inc.
Palestine Principal Healthcare Limited Partnership
PHC-Ashland, L.P.
PHC-Aviation, Inc.
PHC-Belle Glade, Inc.
PHC-Charleston, L.P.
PHC-Cleveland, Inc.
PHC-Doctors' Hospital, Inc.
PHC-Elko, Inc.
PHC-Eunice, Inc.
PHC Hospitals, LLC
PHC-Indiana, Inc.
PHC-Knox, Inc.
PHC-Lake Havasu, Inc.
PHC-Lakewood, Inc.
PHC-Los Alamos, Inc.
PHC-Louisiana, Inc.
PHC-Martinsville, Inc.
PHC-Minden G.P., Inc.
PHC-Minden, L.P.
PHC-Morgan City, L.P.
PHC-Morgan Lake, Inc.
PHC-Nevada, Inc.
PHC-Opelousas, L.P.
PHC-Palestine, Inc.
PHC-Ripley, LLC
PHC-Tennessee, Inc.
PRHC-Alabama, LLC
PRHC-Ennis G.P., Inc.
PRHC-Ennis, L.P.
Principal Hospital Company of Nevada, Inc.
Principal Knox, L.L.C.
Principal Knox, L.P.
Principal-Needles, Inc.
Vaughan Regional Medical Center, LLC
STATE of North Carolina v. Raymond BENNETT.

No. 214P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 26, 2015.

Raymond Bennett, Raleigh, for Bennett, Raymond.

Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of N.C.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the application filed by Petitioner on the 24th of June 2015 in this matter for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Montgomery County:

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 26th of June 2015."
Nancy SNYDER v. Maxine DUNCAN, Jean Wilson, and Paul Buchanan.

No. 382P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 11, 2008.

Stephen L. Snyder, for Nancy Snyder.

Lloyd Hise, Jr., Spruce Pine, for Duncan & Wilson.

Gerald McKinney, Greensboro, for Buchanan.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the conditional petition filed on the 22nd day of August 2008 by Defendant (Buchanan) 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:

"Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 11th day of December 2008."
# C_2023314EN.01001401.xml

| 4.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/14

---

Action brought on 6 July 2023 — Hypo-Bank Burgenland v SRB

(Case T-386/23)

(2023/C 314/16)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Hypo-Bank Burgenland AG (Eisenstadt, Austria) (represented by: G. Eisenberger, A. Brenneis and J. Holzmann, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

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 it concerns the applicant, and |
| --- | --- |

—

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 it concerns the applicant, and

| — | order the Single Resolution Board to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Single Resolution Board to pay the costs.

Further, the applicant claims that the present action for annulment should be joined to Case T-387/23, Schelhammer Capital Bank v SRB, on account of their connection and same subject matter, for the purposes of the written or oral part of the procedure and decision, pursuant to Article 68 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

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-369/23, Hypo Vorarlberg Bank v SRB.

---
STATE of North Carolina v. Cassandra BOSTON and Carryne Satterwhite.

No. 421P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 11, 2008.

D. Tucker Charns, Durham, for Boston.

W. Wallace Finalator, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, C. Colon Willoughby, Jr., District Attorney, for State of NC.

Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ___, 663 S.E.2d 886.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by the Defendant on the 9th day of September 2008 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30, and the motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question filed by the State of NC, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the motion to dismiss the appeal is

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

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 9th day of September 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:

*567"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 11th day of December 2008."
February 14, 1978



## 78-9 MEMORANDUM OPINION FOR THE
DEPUTY ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET

Corporation for Public Broadcasting— Grants—Monitoring Administration of (47 U.S.C. § 392)

This memorandum is in response to your request for our opinion concerning the question of administration of existing public educational television or radio broadcasting facilities grants. The question has been raised in connection with proposed legislation now being reviewed by your Office. The issue presented is whether compliance with conditions contained in existing grants previously awarded under the present law should be monitored in the future by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW), by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), or by some third agency such as the Department of
Justice. Under current law, if, within 10 years after completion of a project for which a grant has been awarded, certain conditions no longer continue to be met, the United States is entitled to recover a proportionate amount of the value of the facilities, determined either pursuant to agreement as to that amount or byjudicial action (47 U.S.C. § 392(0)- Although this provision gives the Government a continuing right to seek to recover such amounts, as a practical matter, unless the grantee voluntarily tenders an agreed-upon sum, recourse to a judicial proceeding will be necessary. In future administration of existing grants a key role will continue to be played by the agency charged with monitoring the status of grantees (currently HEW), for only it will become aware of noncompliance with required conditions and be in a position to take steps to recover funds due.It therefore appears that the potential for recapturing funds cannot realistically be regarded simply as property which can be treated without concern for any trailing strings. The sort of administrative role necessarily required in these circumstances clearly cannot be played by a litigating agency such as the Department of Justice. We question whether CPB should be called upon to

39assume authority to monitor these grants where the Corporation’s anticipated

role with respect to existing grants would be much the same as that currently played by HEW. CPB’s carefully preserved nongovernmental status might be legally jeopardized by following so closely in the steps of a government agency. Whether that step should be taken is, of course, a question of policy as to which we express no opinion.

L e o n U l m a n Deputy Assistant Attorney General

Office o f Legal Counsel

40
#### Jeffrey E. Davidson, as Executor of Donald L. Davidson, Deceased, et al., Appellants, v John G. O'Brien, M.D., et al., Respondents.

[801 NYS2d 861]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Norman W Seiter, Jr., J.), entered May 21, 2004. The order granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the motion is denied and the complaint is reinstated.

Memorandum: Donald L. Davidson (decedent) was treated by John G. O’Brien, M.D. (defendant) on numerous occasions from 1991 through 2002. Although decedent complained of erectile dysfunction in 1989 and 1992, he made no further complaints of such dysfunction until March 1999. At that time, defendant prescribed Viagra. In August 2000 defendant increased the strength of the prescription, and in June 2001 decedent was referred to a urologist and diagnosed with prostate cancer. On May 23, 2003, decedent and his wife, plaintiff Mary Cooper Davidson, commenced this medical malpractice action alleging, inter alia, that defendant failed to diagnose decedent’s prostate cancer.

Supreme Court erred in granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Although defendants met their initial burden of establishing that the action was time-barred, we conclude that plaintiffs raised a triable issue of fact whether the statute of limitations was tolled by the continuous treatment doctrine *(see*CPLR 214-a). Plaintiffs submitted *1331evidence that decedent’s return visits were contemplated by both decedent and defendant and that defendant treated decedent for a symptom “indicating the existence” of prostate cancer *(Green v Varnum,*273 AD2d 906, 907 [2000]). Thus, plaintiffs raised a triable issue of fact whether defendant continuously treated decedent “for the same illness, injury or condition which gave rise tó the said act, omission or failure” (CPLR 214-a; *see Green,*273 AD2d at 907; *see also Shifrina v City of New York,*5 AD3d 660, 662 [2004]; *Hein v Cornwall Hosp.,*302 AD2d 170, 173-174 [2003]; *Bonanza v Raj, 280*AD2d 948, 949 [2001]; *Hill v Manhattan W. Med. Group—H.I.P.,*242 AD2d 255 [1997]; *cf. Doyaga v Columbia-Presbyterian Med. Ctr.,*307 AD2d 333, 334 [2003]). “Merely because defendant[ ] did not diagnose . . . decedent’s condition as cancer is not a basis to find that [he was] not treating [decedent] for it if his symptoms were such as to indicate its existence and [defendant] nevertheless failed to properly diagnose it” (Hill, 242 AD2d at 255). Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Gorski, Martoche, Pine and Lawton, JJ.
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 17

- 4977

_____________________________
R OBERT E LLIS B ARNHILL , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Cour t for Santa Rosa County

. John F. Simon , Judge

. March 27, 2018

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. W OLF , R OBERTS , and W ETHERELL , JJ., concur.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 o r 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee
, for Appellant

. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. R AFAEL R

UIZ-R UIZ, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 14-50492

D.C . No. 3:14-c r-01713-LAB
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Larry A. B urns, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d De c e m

be r 9, 2015 ** B e fore : WALLAC E, R AW LINSON, a

n d IKUTA, C irc uit Judge s. R a fa e l R uiz -R u iza ppe a ls from

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt a nd c ha lle nge s the 2 4-m o nth se nte nc e im p ose d following his guilty -ple a c onvic tion for be ing a
re m ove d a l ie n found in the Unite d State s, in viola

t ion of 8 U.S.C . § 1326. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we a ffirm
. 

# FIL ED DEC 15 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).R

uiz -R uizfirst c onte nds tha

t the distric t c ourt a

buse d its disc re t ion by de ny ing thepa

rtie s’ joint re c om

m e ndation for a

fa st-tra c k de pa

rture unde r U.S.S.G. § 5K3.1. C ontra ry t o R uiz -R uiz ’ s a rgum e nt, the re c o rd re fle c t s tha t the distric t c o urt prope rly

ba se d its de nia l of the fa st-tra c k de pa rture on individua

liz e d fa c t ors a n d not on a

bla nke t polic y

of de ny ing fa st-tra c k de p arture s to a c e rta in group of de fe nda

nts. Se e Unite d State

s v . Rosale

s-Gonzale

s , 801 F.3d 1177, 1183- 84 (9th C ir. 2015). W e like wise re

je c t R uiz -R uiz ’ s a rgum e nt tha

t the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of the fa st-tra c k de pa

rture wa s im

prope r be c a

use it inte rfe re d with theprose c utor’ s e xe rc ise of disc re t ion in ple a ba rga ining. Se eid. at 1183. Fina lly , R uiz -R uizargue s tha

t his se nte nc e is substa

ntive ly unre a sona

ble in light of the

c ourt’ s de nia l of the fa st-tra c k de pa rture an d its foc us on thene e d for de te rre nc e . The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion. Se eGall v . Unite d State s , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The se nte nc e is substa

ntive ly re a sona ble in light of the 1 8 U.S.C . § 3553(a) fa c tors a nd the tota l ity

of the c irc um sta

nc e s, inc luding R uiz -R uiz ’ s im m igration history
. Se e Gall , 552 U.S. a t 51; Unite d State

s v . Gutie r re z-Sanc he z , 587 F.3d 904, 908 (9th C ir. 2009) (“ The we ight to begive n the
va rious fa c tors in a pa

rtic ula r c a se is for the disc re tion of the distric t c ourt.” ). AFFIRM E D.

1 4
- 5 0 4 9 2 2
Exhibit 32

STATEMENT PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,  AS ENACTED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 (the "Quarterly Report") of Edison
Mission Energy (the "Company"), and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as enacted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned certifies, to the best of his
knowledge and belief, that:

| |  | /s/THEODORE F. CRAVER, JR.Theodore F. Craver, Jr.
Chief Executive Officer
Edison Mission Energy
| |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |  | /s/W. JAMES SCILACCIW. James Scilacci
Chief Financial Officer
Edison Mission Energy            

This
statement accompanies the Quarterly Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Edison Mission Energy and will be retained by Edison Mission Energy and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---



QuickLinks