alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# CE2004065EN.01008101.xml

| 13.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 65/81 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 65/81

---

(2004/C 65 E/090)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1425/03

by Dorette Corbey (PSE) to the Commission

(15 April 2003)

Subject:   Directive on packaging and packaging waste

Subject:

The Directive on packaging and packaging waste (94/62/EC (1)) is currently undergoing revision. Article 6 of the Directive sets quantitative targets for the recovery and recycling of packaging waste. The beginning of Article 6 reads as follows:

1

| | In order to comply with the objectives of this Directive, Member States shall take the necessary measures to attain the following targets covering the whole of their territory ... |
| --- | --- |

In order to comply with the objectives of this Directive, Member States shall take the necessary measures to attain the following targets covering the whole of their territory ...

Can the Commission confirm that there is a firm obligation on the Member States to attain the targets for recovery and recycling?

Can the Commission confirm that, as the guardian of the legal framework responsible for ensuring that EC legislation is properly transposed, complied with and implemented, it will initiate proceedings against any Member State which does not attain the targets contained in Article 6?

Does the Commission agree that the measures to be taken by the Member States are only a means of fulfilling the obligation laid down in Article 6 and are not the objective per se?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(3 June 2003)

(3 June 2003)

The achievement of the recovery and recycling targets are legal obligations for the Member States, required under Article 6 of Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994, on packaging and packaging waste. The Commission can confirm that it will fulfil its role as guardian of the EC Treaty and follow-up cases of non-compliance with the targets of the Directive. This will, if necessary, include the initiation of infringement proceedings under Article 226 of the EC Treaty.

Article 6 of Directive 94/62/EEC stipulates that the Member States shall take the necessary measures to attain the targets set out by that provision. The Member States have the possibility to choose the means they use to achieve these targets provided that Community legislation is complied with.

---

(1)  OJ L 365, 31.12.1994, p. 10.

1

---
Rethea C. MASSEY v. Douglas A. HOFFMAN.

No. 413P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 11, 2008.

Ronald H. Garber, Raleigh, for Hoffman.

C. Terrell Thomas, Jr., John W. Welch, Jr., for Massey.

Christopher G. Browning, Jr., Solicitor General, Mark A. Davis, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of NC.

Prior report: 184 N.C.App. 731, 647 S.E.2d 457.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by the Respondent on the 21st day of August 2007 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30, and the motions to dismiss the appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question filed by the State of NC and the Petitioner, 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 June 2008."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 21st day of August 2007 by Respondent 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:

*908"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 11th day of June 2008."
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER>                                      1000
       
<S>                                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                     YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                            1138
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     8912
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 13548
<PP&E>                                            3356
<DEPRECIATION>                                    1586
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   16688
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             9644
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            47
<OTHER-SE>                                        5189
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     16688
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 16767
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    14282
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  46
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   2483
<INCOME-TAX>                                       283
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               2132
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      2132
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        


</TABLE>
Exhibit 23.1





Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm






Board of Directors


GameTech International, Inc.


Reno, Nevada




We have issued our report dated February 1, 2012, with respect to the consolidated financial statements included in the Annual Report of GameTech International, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended October 30, 2011.  We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said report in the Registration Statements of GameTech International, Inc. on Forms S-8 (File Nos. 333-167749 effective June 24, 2010, 333-122836 effective February 15, 2005, 333-72886 effective November 7, 2001, and 333-51411 effective April 30, 1998).








/S/ PIERCY BOWLER TAYLOR & KERN





Certified Public Accountants


Las Vegas, Nevada


May 30, 2012
STATE of North Carolina v. Christopher CHIAROMONTE.

No. 238P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 9, 2008.

Kathleen A. Widelski, for Chiaromonte.

Richard G. Sowerby, Assistant Attorney General, Ronald L. Moore, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by the Defendant on the 23rd day of May 2008 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 730, 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 9th day of October 2008."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 23rd day of May 2008 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th day of October 2008."
Fiscal 2011 Executive Bonus Plan



 Exhibit 10.1 
 Costco Wholesale Corporation 
 Executive Bonus Plan 

For fiscal year 2011, executive officers (other than Jim Sinegal and Jeff Brotman) are, depending upon the individual, eligible for a bonus award of up
to approximately $100,000. The final bonus amount is determined by Jim Sinegal, subject to the approval of the Compensation Committee. 

Eligibility for up to 50% of the bonus amount is determined by whether the Company has met its pre-tax income goal for the year, as indicated in the
Company’s internal budget. 
 The remaining 50% is determined by goals relevant to the executive officer’s area of responsibility, as
well as a discretionary component not linked to any particular metric: 
 For those whose responsibilities are operational, the
goals relate to sales, controllable expenses, shrink, and pre-tax profit in their areas of responsibility. 
 For those whose
responsibilities are primarily buying, the goals relate to sales, gross margin, shrink, and inventory turns in their areas of responsibility. 
 For those who responsibilities combine operational and buying functions, the goals relate to a combination of those described in the prior two paragraphs. 

For those whose responsibilities are staff functions, the goals relate to a combination of Company-wide operational and buying goals, in
addition to qualitative factors relevant to their areas of responsibility. 
 To be eligible for the annual bonus, the individual must still be
employed by the Company at the time bonus checks are issued (November).
WILLIAMS v. BIRD.

No. COA08-594.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed March 17, 2009.

Certification Date April 6, 2009.

Appeal from Rowan (07CVS1364).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
----

(2004/C 65 E/162)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2416/03

by Concepció Ferrer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 July 2003)

Subject:   Communication on PVC strategy

The Commission's answer to my oral question H-0259/03 (1) provides no information over and above what has been known for two years now. At the same time, the subject of the strategy on PVC referred to in that question formed part of the Commission's work programmes for 2002 and 2003. In the light of the above, could the Commission specify when it is that it intends to present the specific communication on PVC? Could it explain why the Review of chemicals policy and the Thematic strategy on recycling only take into consideration PVC and do not cover other materials?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(18 September 2003)

While it is not possible to give a precise indication of when the Commission will be in a position to bring forward its planned Communication on the environmental issues of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) many of the issues arising are the subject of ongoing work. A study is currently being carried out to compare the life-cycle assessments of PVC and other potential substitute materials in a wide range of applications and first results are expected early in the new year. The Commission is also keeping under continual review progress towards the achievement of the voluntary commitment made by industry to phase out lead stabilisers in PVC by 2015 and increase recycling of PVC by an additional 200 000 t by 2010, as well as assessing the level of ambition of this commitment. For that purpose senior Commission officials, together with Members of the European Parliament, are members of the monitoring group which will oversee the operation of the voluntary commitment. As regards other aspects mentioned in the Commission's Green Paper, consideration is currently being given to banning the use of cadmium in PVC, and, in the case of phthalates, risk assessments are still ongoing.

The Communication (2) towards a thematic strategy on the prevention and recycling of waste, while not addressing PVC specifically, addresses it indirectly under the prevention and recycling of waste in general.

The framework legislation on Chemicals, which is expected to be adopted later this year, while not focusing specifically on PVC, will cover chemicals in general and their uses in products.

----

(1)  Written answer of 13.5.2003.

(2)  COM(2003) 301 final.

----
STATE of North Carolina v. Mark N. PATTERSON.

No. 434P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 6, 2008.

Daniel F. Read, Durham, for Patterson.

Scott Conklin, Assistant Attorney General, Michael Bonfoey, District Attorney, for State of NC.

Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ___, 648 S.E.2d 250.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 6th day of September 2007 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 6th day of March 2008."
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 356/2014Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 356/2014 of 8 April 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 356/2014                     

# of 8 April 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, 8 April 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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          26,464
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   28,106
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                55,763
<PP&E>                                         452,327
<DEPRECIATION>                                 271,838
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 237,267
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           47,516
<BONDS>                                        244,926
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      2,600
<COMMON>                                         1,260
<OTHER-SE>                                    (59,035)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   237,267
<SALES>                                         28,357
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                55,112
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   12,660
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                22,061
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              19,967
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    424
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                424
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 10,972
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    11,396
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.72
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.72


</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**RECKSONOPERATING PARTNERSHIP, L. P.**

 

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

**ofthe United States Code**

 

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

 

1)   TheQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly periodended June 30, 2008 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934(15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

 

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

 
| Dated: August 8,  2008 |   |                                        |
|-----------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------|
|                        | By     |  /s/  GREGORY F. HUGHES                |
|                        |   | Gregory  F. Hughes                          |
|                        |   | Treasurer                                   |
|                        |   | of  Wyoming Acquisition GP LLC,             |
|                        |   | the  sole general partner of the Registrant |

 

----
NUMBER 13-13-00264-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

ADOLFO VELA D/B/A 

ADELCO ENTERPRISES, Appellant,

v.

CATLIN SPECIALTY INSURANCE

COMPANY, ET AL., Appellees.

____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 445th District Court

of Cameron County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Garza and Perkes

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, Adolfo Vela d/b/a Adelco Enterprises, attempted to appeal an order 

granting summary judgment rendered on April 17, 2013. One of the appellees, Catlin 

Specialty Insurance Company (“Catlin”), has requested this Court to examine its 

jurisdiction over the appeal. According to Catlin, the summary judgment was not a final 

judgment because it failed to dispose of all claims, specifically, its own claims for 
2

attorney’s fees. Catlin supported its position with a transcript from a trial court hearing in 

which the trial court explicitly stated that the summary judgment order was not intended to 

be a final judgment and that claims remain pending in the case. 

Upon review of the documents before the Court, it appears that the order from 

which this appeal was taken was not a final, appealable order. An appeal generally may 

be taken only from a final judgment. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 

(Tex. 2001). With certain exceptions that are not applicable to this case, a judgment is 

final for purposes of appeal if it disposes of all pending parties and claims in the record. 

Id. We determine whether a judgment is final by considering the judgment's language 

and the record in the case. Id. When, as here, there has not been a conventional trial 

on the merits, an order or judgment is not final for purposes of appeal "unless it actually 

disposes of every pending claim and party or unless it clearly and unequivocally states 

that it finally disposes of all claims and parties." Id. at 205. In such a case, the inclusion 

of a “Mother Hubbard clause,” i.e., one reciting that "all relief not granted is denied," does 

not indicate that a judgment rendered without a conventional trial on the merits is final. 

Id. at 203–04. An order does not dispose of all claims and all parties merely because it is 

entitled "final" or because the word "final" appears elsewhere in the order. Id. at 205.

The Court, having considered the documents on file, is of the opinion that the 

appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See id. Accordingly, the appeal is 

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION. 

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the

11th day of July, 2013.
POPE v. BRIDGE BROOM, INC.

No. 157P15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Aug. 20, 2015.

Fred W. DeVore, III, Charlotte, for Pope, Tony Harold (Administrator of the Estate of Susan Lanier Fries).

Colin E. Scott, Charlotte, for Bridge Broom, Inc.

Derek P. Adler, Charlotte, for Pope, Tony Harold (Administrator of the Estate of Susan Lanier Fries).

Kelly Ireland Valente, Charlotte, for Bridge Broom, Inc.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 17th of June 2015 by Plaintiff to Amend Petition for Discretionary Review:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of August 2015."
----

(2004/C 33 E/081)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0870/03

by Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 March 2003)

Subject:   Averting alcohol-related harm in Finland

The assessment base used for excise duties on alcoholic beverages in Finland is substantially higher than in most Member States. However, its yield does not match the costs to society incurred because of alcohol-related harm.

By virtue of an exception granted in the membership negotiations, Finland has been allowed to restrict quantities imported for private consumption so as to prevent the import incentive resulting from the differences in excise duties from giving rise to insurmountable problems. That exception is now coming to an end.

If a Member State can show that complete freedom as regards private imports causes serious problems from the point of view of public morality, public policy, public security, or health, as referred to in Article 30 of the EC Treaty, or specific public health problems within the meaning of Article 95, can it act to put matters right? What kind of measures are possible in such a situation?

Joint answer

to Written Questions P-0810/03 and P-0870/03

given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(14 April 2003)

----

(1)  COM(2000) 316 final.

(2)OJ L 271, 9.10.2002.

----