alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Violet KERR v. Fred LONG, Jr., M.D.

No. 216P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 11, 2008.

Cedric R. Perry, Rocky Mount, for Violet Kerr.

*565Jaye E. Bingham, Raleigh, for Fred Long.

David D. Ward, Michael C. Allen, Raleigh, for Jerry Long.

Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ___, 657 S.E.2d 920.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Plaintiff on the 8th day of May 2008 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 11th day of December 2008."
IN RE T.D.K.

No. COA08-807.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed January 6, 2009.

Certification Date January 26, 2009.

Appeal from Guilford (07JT89, 07JT90, 07JT91).

Case reported without published opinion. Reversed in part, affirmed in part.
STATE v. DAVIS.

No. COA07-1023.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed March 4, 2008.

Certification Date March 24, 2008.

Appeal from Wake (06CRS29794).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.3
 
                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT
 
To the Board of Directors of Fina Raffinaderij Antwerpen NV
 
We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Registration Statement of
PetroFina SA on Form S-8 (File No. 333-61145) of our report dated March 22,
1999, appearing in the Annual Report on Form F-20 of PetroFina SA for the year
ended December 31, 1998, relating to the balance sheets of Fina Raffinaderij
Antwerpen NV as of December 31, 1998, 1997 and 1996 and the related statements
of income for each of the years in the three year period ended December 31,
1998.
 
April 27, 1999
Antwerp, Belguim
 
Klynveld Peat Marwick Goerdeler Reviseurs d'Enterprises
Represented by
 
/s/ L. RUYSEN
L. Ruysen
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JU NE 2 4 , 2016

NO. 03

- 13

- 00619

- CV

Argonaut Insurance Company and Argonaut Great Central Insurance Company, Appellant s

v.

Glenn Hegar, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas; and Ken Paxton,

Attorney General of the State of Texas, Appellee s

APPEAL FROM THE 98TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, GO ODWIN, AND FIELD

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE GOODWIN

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the tr i a l court on August 19, 2013. Having

reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the C ourt holds that there was no reversible error

in the trial court’s judgment . T herefore, the C ourt affirms the trial court’s judgment

. The

appellant s shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the court below.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-29-2000
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                              SEP-29-2000
<CASH>                                         34,311
<SECURITIES>                                   12,691
<RECEIVABLES>                                  15,435
<ALLOWANCES>                                      226
<INVENTORY>                                     1,392
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               64,329
<PP&E>                                      1,090,816
<DEPRECIATION>                                259,674
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                921,570
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          59,198
<BONDS>                                       824,222
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                           63
<OTHER-SE>                                     11,626
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  921,570
<SALES>                                             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              313,351
<CGS>                                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 111,686
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              147,211
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             55,523
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (303)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (120)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (423)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (423)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.08)


</TABLE>
----

(2004/C 65 E/222)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2749/03

by Jan Dhaene (PSE) to the Commission

(15 September 2003)

Subject:   Refund of the German HGV toll (LKW-Maut) by the government of the Flemish Region

The government of the Flemish Region plans to provide compensation for lorry drivers operating in Germany by refunding them part of the cost of the Eurovignette. Lorry drivers who can prove that they have driven for at least 30 days or at least 60 days on the German road network are refunded 1/12 or 2/12 of the cost of the Eurovignette respectively. This refund is in addition to the existing rules under which to 2/12 of the Eurovignette costs are refunded. In practice this will therefore mean that some Flemish road haulage operators recover one-third of the cost of the Eurovignette. Furthermore, the Belgian Federation of Road Haulage Operators, FBETRA, is advising its members to pass on the cost of the HGV toll to their clients.

Does the refund of part of the cost of the Eurovignette by the Flemish Region comply with European law?

Does this refund create a precedent? In other words, can Member States refund environmental taxes levied in other Member States to35 300 private individuals or legal entities?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(21 October 2003)

The Commission has no information regarding a plan by the Flemish Region to reimburse part of the charges paid by consignors who use German motorways.

In principle, the Commission needs detailed information before it can comment on the admissibility of reimbursing road user charges in a Member State. Such a measure is in any event liable to constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 87 of the EC Treaty, given that a measure of this kind involving a transfer of public resources and conferring an advantage upon certain undertakings may threaten to distort competition and affect trade between Member States. All Member States must notify the Commission in advance of any new aid, and the Commission will, as appropriate, assess the aid's compatibility with the internal market.

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSE VALADEZ; BABITA VALADEZ,

 Plaintiffs - Appellees,

 v.

RUBEN AGUALLO; PAUL GREGORIO,

 Defendants - Appellants.

No. 10-15058

D.C. No. 5:08-cv-03100-JW

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

James Ware, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted February 15, 2011 

San Francisco, California

Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

Ruben Aguallo and Paul Gregorio appeal the district court’s judgment, after

jury trial, in favor of plaintiffs Jose and Babita Valadez in their action alleging

claims under RICO, and for extortion and intentional infliction of emotional

distress. 

FILED

MAY 12 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

The evidence established that appellees were engaged in interstate

commerce through their rental car upholstery repair and interior cleaning business;

their conduct need not have more than a de minimis effect on interstate commerce. 

See United States v. Atcheson, 94 F.3d 1237, 1241 (9th Cir. 1996). The fraud

verdict was not inconsistent with the verdicts on the other counts because the fraud

claim had different elements. The jury’s award of nominal damages on the RICO

claim supported the award of the attorney’s fees, which are mandatory when a

violation of RICO is established. See 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c).

AFFIRMED.
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 915/2014Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 915/2014 of 21 August 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 915/2014                     

# of 21 August 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, 21 August 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.
#### Brad Lee Hulett, an Infant, by Ronald H. Hulett, His Father, et al., Respondents, v Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation et al., Defendants, and National Rail Passenger Corporation et al., Appellants.

[801 NYS2d 221]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Edward D. Garni, J.), entered September 27, 2004 in a personal injury action. The order, among other things, granted plaintiffs’ motion to vacate the dismissal of the action and to restore the action to the trial calendar.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs for reasons stated in decision at Supreme Court. Present—Kehoe, J.P., Gorski, Martoche, Smith and Hayes, JJ.
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1156/2014 (repealed)Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1156/2014 of 29 October 2014 correcting the Slovenian version of Commission Regulation            (EC) No 1135/2009 imposing special conditions governing the import of certain products originating in or consigned from China,            and repealing Commission Decision 2008/798/EC (Text with EEA relevance) (repealed)         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1156/2014                     

# of 29 October 2014

# correcting the Slovenian version of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1135/2009 imposing special conditions governing the import                        of certain products originating in or consigned from China, and repealing Commission Decision 2008/798/EC                     

# (Text with EEA relevance) (repealed)

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

Textual Amendments

F1Repealed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/170 of 4 February 2015 repealing Regulation (EC) No 1135/2009 imposing special                                 conditions governing the import of certain products originating in or consigned from China Text with EEA relevance.
SKEEN v. McINTYRE.

No. COA06-910.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed March 4, 2008.

Certification Date March 24, 2008.

Appeal from Gaston (05CVS3246).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
STATE v. LAND.

No. COA08-407.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed March 17, 2009.

Certification Date April 6, 2009.

Appeal from Wake (05CRS11316, 05CRS11317).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
```

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 175 (Monday, September 12, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 53797]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-17957]

[[Page 53797]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisition of Shares of Bank or 
Bank Holding Companies

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank 
Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and Sec. [thinsp]225.41 of the Board's 
Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. 
The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth 
in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal 
Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for 
inspection at the office of the Board of Governors. Interested persons 
may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for 
that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must 
be received not later than September 26, 2005.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (Patrick M. Wilder, Assistant 
Vice President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:
    1. Mark Tolliver and Catherine Averill, both of Orland Park, 
Illinois; to acquire voting shares of Admiral Family Banks, Inc., 
Alsip, Illinois, and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of 
Federated Bank, Onarga, Illinois.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, September 6, 
2005.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 05-17957 Filed 9-9-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
```
STATE of North Carolina v. Johnny WILLIAMS.

No. 169P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Aug. 20, 2015.

Jillian C. Katz, Assistant Appellant Defender, For Williams, Johnny.

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

Ernie Lee, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

**ORDER**

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 19th of May 2015 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 20th of August 2015."
CERTIFIC ATE TO BE FILED WITH NOT ICE OF A P P EAL TO TH E COURT OF A P P EALS (CIVIL CASE S) AP P ELL ATE NO. __________________________ TRIAL COURT NO. C1430319 L EGATHADEMI

NGS § I N THE 145 J UDI CIAL

T H
VS § DI STRI CT COURT OF GARRI SON NURSI

NG HOME A

ND REHAB IL I TATI ON CENTER AND GARRI SON NURSI

NG HOME, I

NC § NACOGDO CHES COUNTY, TEXAS
The rec ords of my off

ice r eflect t he fol low ing in form ation in this case: AP P ELL ANT: GARRI SON NURSI NG HOME A

ND REHAB I L I TATI ON CENTER AND GARRI SON NURSI

NG HOME, I

NC CASE TYPE: Civil JUDG MENT OR AP P EALABLE ORDER SIGNED: APPEALAB LE ORDER: June 29, 2015 NOTICE OF AP P EAL FILE DATE: July 17, 2015 REQUEST F OR F INDING S OF F ACT: N/A MOTION F OR NEW TRIAL: N/A DATE REQUES T FOR C LERK’S RECORD F ILED: July 17, 2015 DATE REQUES T FOR R EPORTER’S RECORD F ILED: July 17, 2015 P RESIDING TRIAL COURT JUDGE: Judg e Campbell CoxI I I TRIAL COURT REPORTER: Candac e Parke WAS AP P ELL ANT DECLARED INDIGENT: No AP P ELL ANT’S COUNSEL IS : Retained AP P ELL ANT’S ATTORNEY: David W Frost 1121 ESE L oop 323, Suite 200 Woodgate 1 Tyler, TX 75701 (903) 579- 7500 (903) 581- 3701 FAXAP P ELL EE’S ATT ORNEY: W S tephen Shires Attorney at L aw 123 San Augustine Street Center, TX75935 (936) 598- 3052 (936) 598- 3031 FAX
DATED this the 27 day of Jul y , 2015. t h

L ORETTA CAMMACK Nac og doches County

District Clerk By : _________________________________
Billy BOLICK, Employee v. ABF FREIGHT SYSTEMS, INC., Employer (Self-Insured).

No. 76P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 6, 2008.

Neil P. Andrews, Charlotte, M. Duane Jones, for ABF Freight Systems.

Richard Huffman, Salisbury, for Bolick.

Prior report: ___ N.CApp. ___, 654 S.E.2d 793.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 19th day of February 2008 for Writ of Supersedeas of the judgment of the 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 6th day of March 2008."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 19th day of February 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 6th day of March 2008."
# CE2004084EN.01048901.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/489 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/489

---

(2004/C 84 E/0567)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2421/03

by Kathleen Van Brempt (PSE) to the Commission

(21 July 2003)

Subject:   Bullfrogs

Subject:

According to nature conservation associations, large colonies of bullfrogs are threatening the fauna in Belgium. Given that the import of these animals has been prohibited since 1997, it is highly likely that they are being imported under another name. According to nature conservation organisations, sellers use the term ‘giant frog larvae’ and other names in order to smuggle bullfrogs into Europe and to sell them at garden centres and markets. These frogs are driving out native species.

Is the European Commission aware that, despite the EU ban, bullfrogs are still being imported into Europe?

What measures is the European Commission taking in order to tackle this illegal trade?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(10 September 2003)

(10 September 2003)

The Commission is not aware that bullfrogs are being smuggled into Europe under other names where they are sold to garden centres and markets. A recent study carried out for the Commission on the application of Union wildlife trade regulations in relation to species which form an ecological threat to Union fauna and flora concludes that American bullfrogs ‘appear to be no longer sold for garden ponds’. The Commission has not received any information on illegal imports of bullfrogs from other sources either.

Combating the smuggling of animals is mainly the responsibility of Member States. However, if the Commission receives relevant information on illegal trade in a species listed on the annexes of Council Regulation 338/97 (1), it can draw Member States' attention to matters whose investigation it considers necessary.

1

The Commission thanks the Honourable Member for this information and will transmit it to the competent Belgian authorities.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 of 9 December 1996 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein, OJ L 61, 3.3.1997.

1

---
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 564/2014Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 564/2014 of 23 May 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 564/2014                     

# of 23 May 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, 23 May 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.