alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# CE2004088EN.01030601.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/306 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/306

---

(2004/C 88 E/0312)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3824/02

by Jan Wiersma (PSE) to the Commission

(20 December 2002)

Subject:   Roma citizens — Buhusi

Subject:

Has the Commission been informed of the serious incident that took place recently in the Romanian municipality Buhusi in which three Roma citizens were killed by the police?

What caused the incident and what explains the severe reaction of the Roma citizens to the police intervention that led to the tragic killing?

Can the Commission verify that this was not a case of use of excessive force by the police, keeping in mind the recent statement by the Council of Europe that this type of action still takes place during the searching of Romani houses or the arresting of suspected Roma, and if excessive force was used, what kind of action will the Commission take?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(24 January 2003)

(24 January 2003)

The Commission has been informed of the incident between the Romanian police forces and the Roma community from Buhusi, which took place on 5 December 2002, through the Romanian press, a report by a Roma Human Rights organisation and a declaration made by the police. The information available to the Commission shows that the incident resulted in two Roma persons killed and two others injured by the police, and four policemen injured as well.

The incident occurred as the police (a group of about 45 policemen, who were later joined by 40 gendarmes) set out to arrest four persons, all ethnic Romas, against whom arrest warrants had been issued for theft and assault.

According to the police, 200 persons armed with pitchforks and axes surrounded them; a riot erupted, the persons they had come to arrest tried to escape, whereupon the police warned them then started shooting.

According to a Roma Human Rights organisation the police used force disproportionately during the search, and the suspects were targeted because of their ethnic origin.

According to the first results of the investigation conducted by the Prosecution Office of Bacau, as reported by the head of the Public Order Directorate of the Romanian Police in a declaration made on 11 December 2002, the police forces used their weapons in self-defence after they were attacked by members of the Roma community.

The final conclusions of the investigation by the Prosecution Office are not yet available.

The Commission monitors respect and protection of minorities in candidate countries as part of the Copenhagen political criteria and reports on a yearly basis in its Regular Reports. The Commission will take into account all relevant information on this issue and, more generally, on treatment of Roma people by the police when drawing up this year's Regular Report on Romania.

---
HYDE v. STATE of N.C.

No. 88P15-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Oct. 9, 2015.

Mason W. Hyde, Salisbury, for Hyde, Mason White.

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

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 5th of October 2015 by Defendant for Petition for Certiorari:

> "Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of October 2015."
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000930764
<NAME> INDUSTRIAL ECOSYSTEMS, INC.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          46,398
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   94,520
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               184,447
<PP&E>                                         220,714
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 426,805
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          500,205
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    20,917,448
<OTHER-SE>                                (22,374,634)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   426,805
<SALES>                                        418,306
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               456,278
<CGS>                                          322,935
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  778,134
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (35,989)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (755,273)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                374,528
<CHANGES>                                        6,269
<NET-INCOME>                                 (374,476)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.01


</TABLE>
THEATTOIWEY GENERAL 

OF ~XAS 

Honorable Geo. H. Sheppard 

Comptroller of Public Accounts 

Austin, Texas 

Dear Mr. Sheppard: Opinion No. O-6322 

Re: Expenses provided for under Article 

2609, Revised Civil Statutes cannot 

in any event be paid from the General 

Maintenance and Contingent Expense 

Appropriation made to the A.&M. 

College. 

Your letter of April 24, 1945, which is copied below, has 

been given our careful consideration: 

"Article 2609, R.C.S., 1925 provides: 

"'There shall be maintained and instructed 

at said college annually free of charge to them t_hree 

students . . . . . , The Comptroller on proper vouchers being 

filed in his office by the directors, is authorized to 

draw his warrant on the State Treasurer against any appropriation made for such purpose.' Emphasis supplied. 

"There is no specific appropriation now 

available for such urpose unless the appropriation made 

to the A. & M. -77-n&r n the General Appropriation Bill 

can be used for such urpose. The General Maintenance 

Appropriation fos b ollege for the biennium ending August 31, 1945, reads as follows: 

For the For the 

Year Year 

1943 1345 

"General maintenance, including supplies, material, labor, equipment, 

traveling and contingent expenses $108,033 $1zJ3,:130’ 

"I shall thank you to advise this department 

whether or nst expenses incurred under Article 2609 may 

be paid from the General Maintenance and Contingent 

Expense Appropriation nsde t: the A. & M. College in the 

biennial appropriation bill.' 

Under the specific provisions of said Article 2609, you are 

not authorized tolay any of said expenses until and/or unless the Legislature has "Made for such purpose" a specific appropriation. 
Honorable Oeo. H. Sheppard - Page 2 O-6322 

YOU state in your letter that no such appropriation has been made; that 

the only possible item from which it could be paid would be that for General 

Maintenance and Contingent Expense, etc. It Is our opinion that this 

specific appropriation would not and does not authorize you to pay any expenses incurred by students, under the provisions of Article 2609. 

We are not, of course, passing upon the constitutionality 

of said Article, or whether the Legislature could, If it desired, make such 

appropriation. 

Very truly yours 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

By s/ Geo. W. Barcus 

Geo. W. Barcus 

Assistant 

GWB-MR-WC 

APPROVED MAY 3, 1945 

s/ Carlos C.AShley 

FIRST ASSISTANT 

ATTORNEY GENERAL 

Approved Opinion Committee by s/BwB Chairman
PNC BANK, N.A., Plaintiff v. Paul White WILSON, Defendant, Third-Party Plaintiff v. Ronald D. Foxworth, The Tow Line, Inc., Third-Party Defendants.

No. 484P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

February 5, 2009.

Paul White Wilson, Pro Se.

Paul S. Holscher, Dexter "Chip" Campbell, III, Raleigh, for PNC Bank.

Robert C. deRosset, Raleigh, for Foxworth, et al.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant & Third Party Plaintiff on the 23rd day of October 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:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th day of February 2009."
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 20 (Tuesday, February 1, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 5200]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-1778]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[FEMA-3198-EM]


Ohio; Amendment No.1 to Notice of an Emergency Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Emergency Preparedness and 
Response Directorate, Department of Homeland Security.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of an emergency declaration for 
the State of Ohio (FEMA-3198-EM), dated January 11, 2005, and related 
determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: January 25, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Magda Ruiz, Recovery Division, Federal 
Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2705.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of an emergency declaration for 
the State of Ohio is hereby amended to include the following areas 
among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the 
catastrophe declared an emergency by the President in his declaration 
of January 11, 2005:

    The counties of Crawford, Huron, Marion, Richland, Sandusky, and 
Seneca for emergency protective measures (Category B) under the 
Public Assistance program for a period of 48 hours.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.036, Disaster 
Assistance.)
Michael D. Brown,
Under Secretary, Emergency Preparedness and Response, Department of 
Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 05-1778 Filed 1-31-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-10-P
#### Scott Danahy Naylon Co., Inc., Respondent, v Daniel N. Maxwell, Appellant.

[801 NYS2d 206]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Joseph G. Makowski, J.), entered August 17, 2004. The order denied defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment dismissing the first cause of action.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously reversed on the law with costs, the motion is granted and the first cause of action is dismissed.

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action seeking, inter alia, to enforce an alleged nonsolicitation covenant contained in a shareholders’ agreement between plaintiff and defendant, a former employee, officer, and shareholder of plaintiff. Supreme Court erred in denying defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment dismissing the first cause of action of the complaint, alleging the breach of the nonsolicitation covenant. As defendant contends, the restrictive covenant is unenforceable inasmuch as it constitutes a mere agreement to agree *(see Joseph Martin, Jr., Delicatessen v Schumacher,*52 NY2d 105, 109-110 [1981]; *see also Matter of 166 Mamaroneck Ave. Corp. v 151 E. Post Rd. Corp.,*78 NY2d 88, 91 [1991]; *Prospect Plaza Tenant Assn., Inc. v New York City Hous. Auth.,*11 AD3d 400, 401 [2004]; *General Elec. Co. v Metals Resources Group,*293 *1406AD2d 417, 419 [2002]). Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Scudder, Kehoe, Martoche and Hayes, JJ.
# C_2023035EN.01006602.xml

| 30.1.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 35/66 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.1.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 35/66

---

Action brought on 14 November 2022 — Ostrava v Commission

(Case T-707/22)

(2023/C 35/84)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Ostrava — Trading e Serviços Internacionais, Sociedade Unipessoal, Lda (Funchal, Portugal) (represented by: S. Gemas Donário and S. Soares, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul Commission Decision C(2020) 8550 final of 4 December 2020 on aid scheme SA.21259 (2018/C) (ex 2018/NN) implemented by Portugal for Zona Franca da Madeira (ZFM) — Regime III; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Decision C(2020) 8550 final of 4 December 2020 on aid scheme SA.21259 (2018/C) (ex 2018/NN) implemented by Portugal for Zona Franca da Madeira (ZFM) — Regime III;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law that are, essentially, identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-553/22, Thorn Investments v Commission.

---
#### Dennis Skoney et al., Individually and as Parents and Natural Guardians of Lauren Skoney, Appellants, v Gregory Pittner, Respondent.

(Appeal No. 2.)

[801 NYS2d 202]

from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (David J. Mahoney, J.), entered November 18, 2004. The order denied plaintiffs’ motion for leave to renew, granted defendant’s motion for leave to renew and upon renewal granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously modified on the law by denying defendant’s motions and reinstating the complaint and as modified the order is affirmed without costs.

Same memorandum as in *Skoney v Pittner*(21 AD3d 1422 [2005]). Present—Green, J.P., Hurlbutt, Scudder, Gorski and Lawton, JJ.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Transportation

###### Maritime Administration

# ACTION:

National Advisory Council public meeting.

# SUMMARY:

                        The Maritime Administration announces that the Marine Transportation System National Advisory Council (MTSNAC) will hold                               ( print page 53830)                            a meeting to discuss MTS needs, regional MTS outreach and education initiatives, an Action Plan for the MTS, and other issues.  A public comment period is scheduled for 8:30 a.m. to 9 a.m. on Wednesday, September 28, 2005.  To provide time for as many people to speak as possible, speaking time for each individual will be limited to three minutes.  Members of the public who would like to speak are asked to contact Richard J. Lolich by September 20, 2005.  Commenters will be placed on the agenda in the order in which notifications are received.  If time allows, additional comments will be permitted.  Copies of oral comments must be submitted in writing at the meeting. Additional written comments are welcome and must be filed by October 5, 2005.                     

# DATES:

The meeting will be held on Tuesday, September 27, 2005, from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. and Wednesday, September 28, 2005, from 8:30 a.m. to 3 p.m. 

# ADDRESSES:

The meeting will be held in the Peabody Memphis, 149 Union Avenue, Memphis, TN  38103.  The hotel's phone number is (901) 529-4000.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Richard Lolich, (202) 366-4357; Maritime Administration, MAR-830, Room 7201, 400 Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC 20590;                         *richard.lolich@dot.gov.*

**Authority:**                             5 U.S.C. App 2, Sec. 9(a)(2); 41 CFR 101-6. 1005; DOT Order 1120.3B.                        

Dated: September 7, 2005.

Joel C. Richard,

Secretary, Maritime Administration.

[FR Doc. 05-18032 Filed 9-9-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-81-P
----

(2004/C 33 E/027)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3909/02

by Caroline Lucas (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(14 January 2003)

Subject:   GATS

The UK Government has clearly implied that at least some parts of the public education system do not fall under the exemption clause in Article 1.3 as they are supplied in competition with the private sector.

Especially in the UK, the higher education sector already comprises a mixture of public and private institutions with increasing amounts of funding coming from fees and other private sources.

In light of this, does the EC plan to agree to any requests from third countries which entail the removal of any limitation which would ensure that commitments apply only to privately-funded education?

Can the EC also clarify the term ‘privately-funded education’, in view of the fact that increasing amounts of funding are coming from fees and other sources to all educational institutions?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 2003)

The Community has no intention to modify the existing commitment on higher education services which is limited to privately funded services.

The term ‘privately-funded education’ limits the Community commitment only to those institutions whose operation is based on private resources. The fact that some educational institutions receive supplementary support from fees or other private funding does not automatically make them ‘privately-funded’.

----
# Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/2368 (repealed)Show full title

Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/2368 of 26 November 2015 adopting a seventh update of the list of sites of Community            importance for the Pannonian biogeographical region (notified under document C(2015) 8189) (repealed)         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/2368                     

# of 26 November 2015

# adopting a seventh update of the list of sites of Community importance for the Pannonian biogeographical region

# *(notified under document C(2015) 8189)* (repealed)                     

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

Textual Amendments

F1Repealed by Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/2333 of 9 December 2016 adopting an eighth update of the list of sites of Community                                 importance for the Pannonian biogeographical region (notified under document C(2016) 8189).
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 734/2014Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 734/2014 of 3 July 2014 establishing the standard import values for determining            the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 734/2014                     

# of 3 July 2014

# establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural                           markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation)(1),                        

Having regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application                           of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors(2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations,                              the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products                              and periods stipulated in Annex XVI, Part A thereto.

(2)The standard import value is calculated each working day, in accordance with Article 136(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU)                              No 543/2011, taking into account variable daily data. Therefore this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its                              publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

The standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to                     this Regulation.                  

# Article 2U.K.

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

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

Done at Brussels, 3 July 2014.

*For the Commission,*                            

*On behalf of the President,*                            

Jerzy Plewa                            

*Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development*                            

## ANNEXU.K.Standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

1

OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.                           

2

OJ L 157, 15.6.2011, p. 1.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

DEVONTE LEE SILAS,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 15-10072

D.C. No. 3:14-cr-08216-NVW

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Neil V. Wake, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 15, 2016** 

Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. 

Devonte Lee Silas appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges

the 43-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for sexual

abuse of a minor, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153, 2243(a), and 2246(2)(D). We

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we vacate and remand. 

FILED

MAR 21 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Silas contends, and the government concedes, that remand is warranted

because the district court imposed the sentence for the purpose of rehabilitation. 

We agree with the parties that the court improperly considered Silas’s need for

rehabilitative services, including sex offender treatment, when it imposed the

sentence. Therefore, we vacate and remand for resentencing. See Tapia v. United

States, 131 S. Ct. 2382, 2391 (2011) (sentencing courts are precluded “from

imposing or lengthening a prison term to promote an offender’s rehabilitation”).

In light of this disposition, we decline to consider Silas’s remaining claims. 

Finding no unusual circumstances, we decline to reassign this case to a

different judge on remand. See United States v. Acosta-Chavez, 727 F.3d 903, 910

(9th Cir. 2013) (absent unusual circumstances, resentencing is to be done by the

original sentencing judge).

VACATED and REMANDED.

2 15-10072