alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# CE2004088EN.01043701.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/437 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/437

---

(2004/C 88 E/0442)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2727/03

by Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 September 2003)

Subject:   Telekom Serbia

Subject:

Piero Fassino, formerly Italian Under-secretary for Foreign Affairs and currently Secretary of the Democrats of the Left party, has claimed that the European Union encouraged investment in Serbia during the leadership of the dictator Milosevic.

Can the Commission confirm this claim?

Which Community institution encouraged European businesses to invest in Serbia, and how did it do so?

Which Community institution is authorised to give the ‘go-ahead’ to investments outside the frontiers of the Union, in this case in the former Yugoslavia?

Is the Commission aware that the papers relating to the UN's investigations into the hidden wealth of Slobodan Milosevic, handed over to the court in The Hague, contain references to sums amounting to around EUR 500 million being paid by Italy to off-shore companies based in Cyprus?

Does the Commission know that the UN investigators think that these sums were part of the payment for the share in Telekom Serbia (29 %) purchased by Telecom Italia?

Is the Commission in possession of any data which might be of use to the investigations into the financial sources of Milosevic's secret wealth?

What steps will the Commission take to help to shed light on these matters?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(10 October 2003)

(10 October 2003)

In the absence of economic and financial sanctions imposed by the European Community in line with a common EU position on a third state, European businesses are free to invest in that country. It is worth noting that in the period to which the Honourable Member seems to refer the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was not subject to an investment ban under Community law. Generally, there is no specific ‘go-ahead’ or ‘authorisation’ or ‘encouragement’ by Union institutions for investments made outside the Union.

Although liaising closely with the respective institutions, the Commission is not in a position to comment on specific details of investigations undertaken by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and other law enforcement bodies on this matter.

---
**Exhibit 32.2**

**SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION**

In connection with theAnnual Report of enherent Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Arunava De, VP of Finance of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, adopted as pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

(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 andresult of operations of the Company. 

 

March 30, 2010 

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 enherent, Corp. and will be retained by enherent Corp. andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
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 September 30, 2005 (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
Jerry ELLISON, Executor of the Estate of Kate H. Ellison, Plaintiff v. GAMBILL OIL COMPANY, INC., J. Gwyn Gambill, Incorporated, and Jim Gambill; Gunvantpuri B. Gosai and B & B Mini Mart, Inc.; and Arlis Tester d/b/a Testers Garage and Muffler Shop and/or Testers Shell & Muffler Shop, Defendants. J. Gwyn Gambill, Incorporated, Third Party Plaintiff v. Jeff Barrett d/b/a Barrett Petroleum Equipment, Third Party Defendant. Rudram Enterprises, Inc., Cross-Plaintiff-Intervenor v. J. Gwyn Gambill, Incorporated, Jim Gambill, and Jeff Barrett d/b/a Barrett Petroleum Equipment.

No. 541A07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 11, 2008.

Warren A. Hutton, Forrest A. Ferrell, Hickory, Jason White, for Kate H. Ellison.

Stephen L. Palmer, for Palmer.

Jimmy D. Reeves, M. Alexandra Reeves, West Jefferson, for Gambill.

Prior report: 186 N.C.App. 167, 650 S.E.2d 819.

Prior report: 362 N.C. 356, 661 S.E.2d 245.

*ORDER*

Having reviewed the briefs and heard oral arguments on plaintiffs appeal on 17 November 2008, the Court *ex mero motu* withdraws its previous order, dated 10 April 2008, denying plaintiff's petition for discretionary review, and allows plaintiff's petition for discretionary review.

Plaintiff shall have forty-five (45) days from the date of this order to file and serve her brief and defendants shall have forty-five (45) days from the service of plaintiff's brief to file and serve their briefs. After all briefs have been filed pursuant to this order, if necessary, the Court will recalendar the case for additional oral argument.

By order of the Court in Conference, this 11th day of December, 2008.
# THEA~TORNEYGENERAI. OF TEXAS
Ausnlv 1% TEXAS
October 18, 1960

Honorable William M. King Securities Commissioner State Securities Board State Office Building Austin 11, Texas Opinion No. WW-95 1 Re: Whether the Securities Commissioner has authority to publish an administrative interpretation of Section 1OAof the Securities Act. Dear Sir:

You have requested our opinion as towhether the Securities Commissioner has authority to publish an administrative interpretation of Section 1OAofthe Securities Act. Article 581, V. C.S. For brevity’s sake, we do not now quote the language detailed on the four pages of your request, but rather state that this interpretation defines and interprets the key phrases of Section 1OAand, in addition, lists some seven factors illustrative of those to be considered in determining whether or not the proposed plan of business appears to be “fair, just and equitable” and some six factors illustrative of those not to be considered.

The application of the doctrine of “fair, just and equitable” to a particular proposed plan of business requires the exercise of discretionary judgment by the Securities Commissioner, based on the particular fact situation presented. There are amultitude offactors which may be considered with respect to any individual case and the relative weight to be given these factors is amatter within the discretion of the Commissioner. However, indetermining whether or not a particular proposed plan ofbusiness is “fair, just and equitable, ” the Commissioner, by necessity, must test such a plan with adefinite set offactors inmind. Certainly the Commissioner has authority topublish and thereby notify the securities industry of these standards of general application hewill take into consideration in guiding his judgment ina determination under Section 1OA.

We do not find that the Securities Commissioner is without authority to issue this administrative interpretation. However, in the absence of aparticular fact situation bywhich to test the propriety ofthe illustrative factors contained inyour request, this office cannot determine whether or not these facts are contrary to the intent ofthe Securities Act inan individual case.Hon. William M. King, page 2 (WW-951)

SUMMARY The Securities Commissioner has authority to publish an administrative interpretation of Section 1OA of the Texas Securities Act, butthe Attorney General, by this opinion, does not pass on the propriety of the illustrative factors contained therein as used indetermining whether or not aparticular proposed plan of business is “fair, just and equitable. ” Very truly yours, WILL WILSON Attorney General of Texas

RAWlpe APPROVED: OPINION COMMITTEE: **BY**Richard A. Weils Assistant Attorney General

W. V. Geppert, Chairman Virgil Pulliam Robert T. Lewis Grundy Williams Tom I. McFarling
REVIEWED FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: Leonard Passmore
Order entered January 18, 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 18
- 01472
- CR CLAUDIO CASTRO, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 1

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F17
- 75758
- H



### O RDER Before the Court is court reporter LaToya Young

- Martinez’s January 16, 2019 first request for an extension of time to file the reporter’s record. We GRANT the request and ORDER the reporter’s record filed within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this order.

/s/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 169 (Thursday, September 1, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 52105]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-17410]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention


Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special 
Emphasis Panel: Epidemiologic Study of Inflammatory Bowel Disease, 
Request for Applications Number DP-05-130; Correction

    Correction: This notice was published in the Federal Register on 
August 18, 2005, Volume 70, Number 159, page 48574. The meeting time 
and date has been changed.
    Time and Date: 2:30 p.m.-4 p.m., September 27, 2005 (Closed).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: J. Felix Rogers, PhD, MPH, Scientific 
Review Administrator, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention 
and Health Promotion, 4770 Buford Highway, MS-K92, Atlanta, GA 30341, 
Telephone 404.639.6101.
    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been 
delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to 
announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, 
for both CDC and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

    Dated: August 26, 2005.
B. Kathy Skipper,
Acting Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for 
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
[FR Doc. 05-17410 Filed 8-31-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This  schedule  contains  summary  financial information extracted from the Form
10-QSB  of  American  Bingo  &  Gaming Corp. and is qualified in its entirety by
reference  to  such  financial  statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                          JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                            MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                     4372742 
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                              1200412 
<ALLOWANCES>                               (299265)
<INVENTORY>                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           6872034 
<PP&E>                                    12139226 
<DEPRECIATION>                            (5543458)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            19413892 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      1668459 
<BONDS>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     10177 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<OTHER-SE>                                16576579 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              19413892 
<SALES>                                    3621128 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           3621128 
<CGS>                                            0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              3414178 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          (71304)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             365410 
<INCOME-TAX>                                189568 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         175842 
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                175842 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .02 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .02 
        

</TABLE>
STATE of North Carolina v. David FELTON.

No. 186P10-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Aug. 20, 2015.

David Felton, for Felton, David.

Amy Kunstling Irene, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

A. Leon Stanback, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 28th of May 2015 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 20th of August 2015."
STATE v. Eugene Tyrone DeCASTRO.

No. 221A93-3.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 14, 2007.

Paul Green, Durham, for DeCastro.

Susan Doyle, District Attorney, for State.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 13th day of November 2007 by State for extension of time to file response to Petition for Writ of Certiorari:

"Motion Allowed. State shall have up to and including the 14th day of December 2007 to file his/her response with this Court. By order of the Court in conference this the 14th day of November 2007."
----

(2004/C 84 E/0562)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2297/03

by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(11 July 2003)

Subject:   Legal basis of the nuclear safety directive

The Commission's proposal (1) for a Council (Euratom) directive on nuclear safety proposes harmonising the administration of funds for decommissioning nuclear power stations. Is the Commission sure that there is an adequate legal basis for such a directive? Is it possible that this part of the directive could be transformed into a separate proposal for a directive?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(12 August 2003)

The Honourable Member's question focuses on the legal basis of the provisions on decommissioning funds included in the proposal for a Council Directive (Euratom) setting out basic obligations and general principles on the safety of nuclear installations.

Article 2(b) of the Euratom Treaty states that the Community must ‘establish uniform safety standards to protect the health of workers and of the general public and ensure that they are applied.’ Title II Chapter 3 of the Euratom Treaty requires basic standards to be laid down to protect the health of workers and the general public against the effects of ionising radiation. On this basis, a considerable body of radiation protection legislation has been produced which, while designed to protect health, has a far wider scope than health protection in the strict sense. Radiation protection and nuclear safety have the common objective of protecting workers and the general public against the effects of ionising radiation, and both form part of the EU's health protection policy. Indeed, in its judgment of 10 December 2002 (Case C-29/99), the Court of Justice confirmed that the Euratom Treaty also covered aspects relating to nuclear safety.

The health of workers and the general public can be protected fully only by removing any potential risk, and this also entails measures to guarantee a high level of nuclear safety. Decommissioning funds should therefore be regarded not as an end in themselves but as a means of ensuring a high level of nuclear safety when decommissioning operations are being carried out. Basically, the funds are comparable to any other measures to achieve this objective, including technical ones. The fact is that financial resources are a key component of a credible nuclear facility safety policy, which has to guarantee a high level of safety not only during a facility's operating lifetime but also afterwards for as long as the facility needs to be monitored for ionising radiation protection purposes. That is why the proposal for a Directive on the safety of nuclear installations, on the legal basis of Chapter 3 of the Euratom Treaty, also contains provisions on decommissioning funds.

----

(1)  COM(2003) 32 - C5-0228/2003 - 2003/0021(CNS).

----
FAULKENBURY v. FAULKENBURY.

No. COA08-682.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed February 17, 2009.

Certification Date March 9, 2009.

Appeal from New Hanover (02CVD301).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
STATE v. Napoleon Junior RANKIN.

No. 40P15-3.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Aug. 20, 2015.

Catherine F. Jordan, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Napoleon J. Rankin, Spruce Pines, for Rankins, Napoleon Junior.

J. Douglas Henderson, District Attorney for State of North Carolina.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 9th of July 2015 by Defendant to Proceed In Forma Pauperis:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of August 2015."
# CE2004078EN.01038601.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/386 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/386

---

(2004/C 78 E/0408)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1777/03

by Claude Moraes (PSE) to the Commission

(28 May 2003)

Subject:   Veria Justice and Home Affairs Council

Subject:

What progress was made at the Veria Justice and Home Affairs Council on implementing the Green Paper on minimum procedural safeguards for defendants and suspects in criminal proceedings adopted by the Commission on 19 February 2003?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(3 July 2003)

(3 July 2003)

The informal Justice and Home Affairs Ministers' Meeting in Veria on 28 March 2003, was in part devoted to a discussion on the Green Paper on procedural safeguards for suspects and defendants in criminal proceedings throughout the Union (1). This meeting was intended as a first exchange of views, and was useful insofar as it provided the Commission with an indication of the views of the Member States on this issue.

1

At the meeting, the Commission presented the Green Paper and stressed the importance of safeguarding citizens' freedoms. During the course of a round table discussion, that ensued, Member States set out their preliminary thoughts on the procedural safeguards initiative.

The Veria discussion represents an early stage in the course of the Green Paper. A public hearing on the subject was on 16 June 2003. Over 50 replies have been received to the Green Paper and these will be taken into account. The Commission, after those wide consultations with experts and interested parties, intends to present a proposal for a Framework Decision on this subject in October 2003, in line with its annual work programme for 2003.

---

(1)  COM(2003) 0075 final.

1

---
wiei_ex1011.htm


 


EXHIBIT 10.11





 




  





1











  






 





 




  





2











  






 





 




  





3











  






 





 




  





4











  






 





 


5
In the Matter of J.I.M.

No. COA15-748.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Dec. 15, 2015.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Affirmed.
STATE of North Carolina v. Jermaine L. HOLLOWAY.

No. 259P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Aug. 20, 2015.

Jermaine L. Holloway, for Holloway, Jermaine L.

Joseph L. Hyde, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Wallace W. Bradsher, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 23rd of July 2015 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 20th of August 2015."
EXHIBIT 31.3

 

CERTIFICATION

 

I, John J. Reyle, certify that:

 

1.        I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of RAIT Financial Trust;

 

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.

 

Date:        April 30, 2018

|        |        |                                                                            |        |
|--------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |   |                                                                       |   |
|   | By:    | /s/ John J. Reyle                                                          |   |
|   |   | Name:  John J. Reyle                                             |   |
|   |   | Interim Chief Executive Officer and Interim President, and General Counsel |   |
|   |   | (Principal Executive Officer)                                              |   |
|   |
# CE2004078EN.01037201.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/372 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/372

---

(2004/C 78 E/0392)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1540/03

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(7 May 2003)

Subject:   Trade in equipment which could be used for torture or capital punishment

Subject:

Could the Commission indicate which, if any, items covered by the proposal for a Regulation concerning trade in certain equipment which could be used for torture or capital punishment (1) are also covered by the (EC) Regulation adopted by the Council on 21 January 2003 suspending duties on weapons and military equipment (150/2003 (2))?

1

2

---

(1)  COM(2002) 770.

1

(2)  OJ L 25, 30.1.2003, p. 1.

2

---