alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# CE2004078EN.01005501.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/55

---

(2004/C 78 E/0053)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1910/03

by Margrietus van den Berg (PSE) to the Commission

(12 June 2003)

Subject:   Underground storage of nuclear waste

Subject:

On 6 November 2002 the Commission published a communication to Parliament and the Council entitled ‘Nuclear safety in the European Union’ (1). In it the Commission says that underground storage of nuclear waste is the safest solution. The Member States are required to have identified underground storage locations by 2008 and to have brought them into operation by 2018.

1

The Commission also says that storage must take place in geologically stable rock formations but the nuclear waste must be retrievable. In the case of underground storage in salt domes in Groningen and Drenthe in the Netherlands this is impossible because the clay and salt deposits in the Netherlands are not in geologically stable rock formations as referred to the communication.

On 12 May 2003 State-Secretary Van Geel gave a reaction to these proposals, on behalf of the Netherlands Cabinet, in a letter to the Second Chamber saying that there was no question of underground storage in the Netherlands over the next hundred years. He also said that the deadlines for implementing the proposals were unrealistic.

What is the Commission's reaction to the various points raised in State-Secretary Van Geel's letter, including the statement that there is no question of underground storage in the Netherlands in the next 100 years?

Can the Commission indicate how it intends to deal with salt and clay formations that do not have the geological structure referred to in the communication, such as the salt domes in Groningen and Drenthe?

Is the Commission prepared to revise its proposals?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(23 July 2003)

(23 July 2003)

The PAGIS study conducted within the Community Research Framework Programme showed the widespread distribution of suitable host rock formations throughout the Union. These are specifically clay, salt and crystalline rocks. The PAGIS study specifically mentioned the existence of potentially suitable salt formations in the Netherlands.

Concerning retrievability, as geological disposal is based on the ‘concentrate and contain’ strategy, the packages containing the radioactive waste could, under normal conditions, be retrievable for many years after emplacement of the waste in repositories in geological formations.

The Commission considers that the current proposal for a Council Directive (Euratom) on the management of spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste (2) already offer significant flexibility to allow for differences between Member States. The Commission has made it clear that it is ready to continue the discussions on its proposals with the Member States in the Council to see if such flexibility might be further enhanced.

2

---

(1)  COM(2002) 605 final.

1

(2)  COM(2003) 32 final.

2

---
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.2

                   CERTIFICATION OF CO-CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I, Douglas A. Lindgren, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of UST Private Equity
Investors Fund, Inc.;

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;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal
quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.

Date: September 15, 2003

/s/ Douglas A. Lindgren
-----------------------------
Douglas A. Lindgren, Co-Chief Executive Officer
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Humphreys, McCullough and Senior Judge Bumgardner 

PILOT CORPORATION AND 

 PILOT CORPORATION AND 

 PILOT TRAVEL CENTER 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 2162-13-4 PER CURIAM 

 MARCH 18, 2014 

RENICIA GREGORY 

FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (Heather K. Bardot; Bancroft, McGavin, Horvath & Judkins, P.C., 

on brief), for appellants. 

 (Brenda C. Moses; The Moses Law Firm, PC, on brief), for appellee. 

 Pilot Corporation and Pilot Corporation and Pilot Travel Center (“employer”) appeal a 

decision of the Workers’ Compensation Commission (“the commission”) finding that Renicia 

Gregory (“claimant”) proved she sustained a compensable injury to her right shoulder and 

mid-back in an accident on August 30, 2012.1

 Employer also maintains the commission erred in 

finding claimant proved her disability was related to a compensable injury by accident. We have 

reviewed the record and the commission’s opinion and find that this appeal is without merit. 

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the commission in its final opinion. See 

Gregory v. Pilot Corp., JCN VA02000012201 (Oct. 10, 2013). We dispense with oral argument 

and summarily affirm because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

 *

 Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. 

1

 Employer acknowledges it originally appealed the commission’s finding that claimant 

proved she sustained a compensable injury to her lower back as a result of the August 30, 2012 

accident, but has now abandoned that argument. 

UNPUBLISHED 
- 2 - 

materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process. See Code 

§ 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27. 

 Affirmed.
DELOITTE &
TOUCHE LLP
LOGO




            Suite 1200                         Telephone: (714) 436-7100
            695 Town Center Drive              Facsimile: (714) 436-7200
            Costa Mesa, California 92626-1924

INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS' REPORT

To Ameriquest Mortgage Company:

We have examined  management's  assertion about  Ameriquest  Mortgage  Company's
compliance  with the minimum  servicing  standards  identified  in the  Mortgage
Bankers Association of America's Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage
Bankers (USAP) as of and for the year ended  December 31, 1997,  included in the
accompanying  management  assertion.  Management is  responsible  for Ameriquest
Mortgage  Company's  compliance  with those  minimum  servicing  standards.  Our
responsibility  is to express an opinion on  management's  assertion  about the
entity's compliance based on our examination.

Our  examination  was  made in  accordance  with  standards  established  by the
American Institute of Certified-Public  Accountants and,  accordingly,  included
examining,  on a  test  basis,  evidence  about  Ameriquest  Mortgage  Company's
compliance  with the  minimum  servicing  standards  and  performing  such other
procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances.  We believe that Our
examination  provides a reasonable  basis for our opinion.  Our examination does
not provide a legal determination on Ameriquest  Mortgage Company's  compliance
with the minimum servicing standards.

In our opinion, management's assertion that Ameriquest Mortgage Company complied
with the aforementioned minimum servicing standards as of and for the year ended
December 31, 1997 is fairly stated, in all material respects.

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
April 8,1998


DELOITTE TOUCHE
TOHMATSU
INTERNATIONAL
#### I.T.R.I. Masonry Corp., Appellant, v State of New York, Respondent.

(Claim No. 106692.)

[801 NYS2d 396]

In a claim, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the claimant appeals from an order of the Court of *991Claims (Collins, J.), entered September 23, 2004, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the claim.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The general contractor never entered into a “liquidating agreement” with the claimant which would have authorized the general contractor to bring a “pass-through” action against the State of New York *(Barry, Bette & Led Duke v State of New York,*240 AD2d 54, 56 [1998]; *see*Postner & Rubin, New York Construction Law Manual § 3:23; *cf. Bovis Lend Lease LMB v GCT Venture,*285 AD2d 68, 69-70 [2001]; *Schiavone Constr. Co. v Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Auth.,*209 AD2d 598, 599 [1994]; *Lambert Houses Redevelopment Co. v HRH Equity Corp.,*117 AD2d 227, 230-231 [1986]; *Ardsley Constr. Co. v Port of N.Y. Auth.,*61 AD2d 953 [1978]). Therefore, the general contractor had no “right” to sue the State based on the damages allegedly sustained by the claimant and, accordingly, could not assign back this “right” to the claimant *(Barry, Bette & Led Duke v State of New York, supra*at 56-57; *cf. Bovis Lend Lease LMB v GCT Venture, supra; Schiavone Constr. Co. v Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Auth., supra).*The claim alleging breach of contract asserted directly against the State is barred due to the absence of privity of contract *(see Alvord & Swift v Muller Constr. Co.,*46 NY2d 276, 282 [1978]; *Bovis Lend Lease LMB v GCT Venture, supra*at 69; *Barry, Bette & Led Duke v State of New York, supra).*The terms of the release dated April 9, 2002, issued to the State by the general contractor reflect no agreement by the State to waive its defense of privity to any claim against it that might be brought by the claimant.

Accordingly, the Court of Claims properly granted summary judgment dismissing the claim. Adams, J.P., Crane, Goldstein and Skelos, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Vicente Anido, Jr., Ph.D., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of ISTA Pharmaceuticals, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2004 fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of ISTA
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.



|                    |  |                                      
|------------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: July 20, 2004 |  | /s/ Vicente Anido, Jr., Ph.D.        
|                    |  | Vicente Anido, Jr., Ph.D.            
|                    |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
IN RE T.P.

No. COA08-649.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed December 2, 2008.

Certification Date December 22, 2008.

Appeal from Mecklenburg (07J583).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS



The Board of Directors
IRI International Corporation:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement on Form
S-8 of IRI International Corporation of our report dated February 27, 1998,
relating to the consolidated balance sheets of IRI International Corporation and
subsidiaries as of December 31, 1997, and 1996, and the related consolidated
statements of operations, cash flows and shareholders' equity for year ended
December 31, 1997, the nine-months ended December 31, 1996 and the year ended
March 31, 1996, which report appears in the December 31, 1997 annual report on
Form 10-K of IRI International Corporation.





                                        KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP


Houston, Texas
March 25, 1998
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 303/2014 (repealed)Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 303/2014 of 25 March 2014 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 673/2005 establishing            additional customs duties on imports of certain products originating in the United States of America (repealed)         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 303/2014                     

# of 25 March 2014

# amending Council Regulation (EC) No 673/2005 establishing additional customs duties on imports of certain products originating                        in the United States of America (repealed)                     

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

Textual Amendments

F1Repealed by Regulation (EU) 2018/196 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 February 2018 on additional customs duties on                                 imports of certain products originating in the United States of America.
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 618 

To further competition in the insurance industry. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 15, 2007 

Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. SPECTER, Mr. LOTT, Mr. REID, and Ms. 

LANDRIEU) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To further competition in the insurance industry. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Insurance Industry 

5 Competition Act of 2007’’. 

6 SEC. 2. ANTITRUST ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Act of March 9, 1945 (59 

8 Stat. 33; 15 U.S.C. 1011 et seq.) (commonly known as 

9 the McCarran-Ferguson Act) is amended— 

10 (1) in section 2(b) (15 U.S.C. 1012(b)), by— 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
2 

•S 618 IS

1 (A) inserting ‘‘as it relates to unfair meth2 ods of competition,’’ after ‘‘Commission Act, as 

3 amended,’’; and 

4 (B) striking ‘‘to the extent that such busi5 ness is not regulated by State law’’ and insert6 ing ‘‘The Federal Trade Commission Act, as it 

7 relates to areas other than unfair methods of 

8 competition, shall be applicable to the business 

9 of insurance to the extent that such business is 

10 not regulated by State law.’’; and 

11 (2) by striking section 3 (15 U.S.C. 1013). 

12 (b) FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT.—Section 6 

13 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 46) is 

14 amended by striking the third undesignated paragraph fol15 lowing subsection (i). 

16 SEC. 3. JOINT ENFORCEMENT POLICY STATEMENT. 

17 The Department of Justice and the Federal Trade 

18 Commission may issue joint statements of their antitrust 

19 enforcement policies regarding joint activities in the busi20 ness of insurance. 

Æ 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

October 31, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

131556 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 131556 

 COA: 261602 

Monroe CC: 04-033818-FC 

ANDREW MICHAEL OUELLETTE,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 20, 2006 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

p1023 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

October 31, 2006 

 Clerk
# CE2004088EN.01060101.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/601 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/601

---

(2004/C 88 E/0615)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0978/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(27 March 2003)

Subject:   Use of funds from the Culture 2000 programme by the municipality of Ancona

Subject:

In September 2002, the monitoring committee of the Italian Ministry for Economic Affairs issued a report on the spending of EU funds.

The report reveals the alarming slowness and inefficiency with which EU funds are allocated to projects by some regional authorities.

The grave concerns about the inadequate use of European funds by local authorities have frequently been echoed by the Commission.

Bearing in mind that some local authorities, such as the municipality of Ancona, urgently need to use European funds to enhance the common cultural area in all its diversity and respecting all its traditions, nurturing creativity and professional mobility, and promoting access to and dissemination of art and culture,

can the Commission state:

| 1. | whether the municipality of Ancona has submitted projects for the Culture 2000 programme? |
| --- | --- |

1.

whether the municipality of Ancona has submitted projects for the Culture 2000 programme?

| 2. | whether the municipality of Ancona has secured funding for these projects? |
| --- | --- |

2.

whether the municipality of Ancona has secured funding for these projects?

| 3. | whether this funding has been used? |
| --- | --- |

3.

whether this funding has been used?

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-6414

THEODORE SHOEMAKER,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

WILLIAM HAINES, Warden, Huttonsville

Correctional Center,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern

District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. W. Craig Broadwater,

District Judge. (CA-01-20)

Submitted: April 24, 2003 Decided: May 5, 2003

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Theodore Shoemaker, Appellant Pro Se. Dawn Ellen Warfield, OFFICE

OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston, West

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Theodore Shoemaker seeks to appeal from the district court’s

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000).

An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus

proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate

of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). When, as here,

the lower court dismisses a § 2254 petition solely on procedural

grounds, a certificate of appealability will not issue unless the

petitioner can demonstrate both “(1) ‘that jurists of reason would

find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the

denial of a constitutional right’ and (2) ‘that jurists of reason

would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in

its procedural ruling.’” Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir.)

(quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)), cert.

denied, 534 U.S. 941 (2001). We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Shoemaker has not satisfied this standard.

See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 123 S. Ct. 1029, 1040 (2003).

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
# C_2023189EN.01000801.xml

| 30.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 189/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 189/8

---

Appeal brought on 28 January 2023 by Mendes SA against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 30 November 2022 in Case T-678/21, Mendes v EUIPO — Actial Farmaceutica Srl

(Case C-42/23 P)

(2023/C 189/11)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Mendes SA (represented by: M. Cavattoni, avvocato)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Actial Farmaceutica Srl

By order of 19 April 2023, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) held that the appeal was not allowed to proceed and that Mendes SA should bear its own costs.

---