alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
----

(2004/C 33 E/231)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2148/03

by Giovanni Pittella (PSE) to the Commission

(27 June 2003)

Subject:   Non-profit-making bodies

Non-profit-making bodies, in particular ones set up by young people and active in the cultural sphere, incalculably enrich European society and constitute a basic force for socio-cultural development and integration.

However, even though it is considered important that non-profit-making bodies should tender for and run EU projects, such bodies find it difficult to secure access to programmes co-financed by the EU on account of the procedural problems they encounter and, in particular, the fact that they cannot implement projects without having money to spend in advance.

In view of the above, is the Commission intending to propose a scheme whereby funding could be made available in advance, subject to the performance of qualitative and quantitative checks on the bodies concerned and the status thereof?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(1 September 2003)

The Commission agrees with the Honourable Member on the fact that bodies active at European level in the field of youth are essential in the socio-cultural development of European society and therefore considers that participation by young people in civil society should be encouraged. More generally speaking, the Commission's administrative and financial procedures, in conformity with the Financial Regulation and the relevant legal basis, allow for support to youth groups through appropriate grant schemes and payment mechanisms (e.g. simple application forms, prefinancing payments up to 80 %, use of lump sums).

The Youth Programme has five application deadlines per year with the objective of ensuring that grants are paid before the start of the projects concerned.

Regarding the support for operating costs to bodies active at European level in the field of youth, prefinancing payments are in fact made on a regular basis. The Commission also makes every effort to ensure that organisations receive the grants as soon as possible in the year they are going to incur the expenditure. In 2003 all pre-financing payments to non-governmental youth organisations were made before April.

----
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE
F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate ca se name: Victor Keith Wilson v. The State of Texas

Appel late case number: 01

- 18

- 00509

- CR

Tri al court case number: 95

- CV

- 0904

Trial court: 10th District Court of Galveston County

Appellant’s court

- appointed counsel filed a brief concluding that the above

- referenced appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). A ppellant, acting pro se, filed a motion requesting access to a copy of the ap pellate record for use in preparing a response to appointed counsel’s brief and an extension of time to file his response. We granted appellant’s motion, ordered that the trial court clerk provide appellant with a copy of the record, and extended appellant ’s filing deadline. Appellant has filed a moti on requesting a second extension of time to file his response to appointed counsel’s brief. Appellant argues that a second extension is necessary because the trial court clerk has not provided him with a comple te copy of the appellate record

.

We grant appellant’s motion for a second extension. If the trial court clerk has not already done so, the trial court clerk shall provide a copy of the record, including the clerk’s record, the reporter’s record, and any supplemental records, to appellant no later than 10 days from the date

of this order

. The trial court clerk shall further certify to this Court, within 15 days of the date of this order, the date upon which delivery of the record to appellant is made.

Appellant’s pro se response to appointed counsel’s brief shall be filed within 4 0 days

of the date of this order. No further extensions shall be granted.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature:

__

/s/ Harvey Brown

_____

Acting individually

Date: __ November 20, 2018

____
# C_2023205EN.01003901.xml

| 12.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 205/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 205/39

---

Action brought on 18 April 2023 — Kivikoski and Others v Council

(Case T-202/23)

(2023/C 205/44)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Ville Kivikoski (Wezembeek-Oppem, Belgium), Ottavia Maffia (Brussels, Belgium), Peter Pristovnik (Brussels) (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of 13 July 2022; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 13 July 2022;

| — | annul, in so far as necessary, to the extent that it states the reasons on which the decision of 13 July 2022 is based, the decision to reject the complaint dated 2 February 2023; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, in so far as necessary, to the extent that it states the reasons on which the decision of 13 July 2022 is based, the decision to reject the complaint dated 2 February 2023;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of their action against the decision of the Secretary General of the Council of 13 July 2022 not to promote them for the 2022 promotion exercise, the applicants rely on two pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging the unlawfulness of the contested decision in so far as it is based on an incorrect application of the statutory rules and rates applicable to promotion, which infringes the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and caused a reasonable loss of opportunity for them to be eligible to promotion to grade AST 8. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging the unlawfulness of the contested decision in so far as it is based on an incorrect application of the statutory rules and rates applicable to promotion, which infringes the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and caused a reasonable loss of opportunity for them to be eligible to promotion to grade AST 8.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging a breach of the principles of foreseeability and legal certainty, and due to the fact that they have suffered unlawful unequal treatment, based on their classification to grade AST 7, not provided for by the legislature. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging a breach of the principles of foreseeability and legal certainty, and due to the fact that they have suffered unlawful unequal treatment, based on their classification to grade AST 7, not provided for by the legislature.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                       0000930810
<NAME>             RECKSON OPERATING PARTNERSHIP, L.P.
<MULTIPLIER>                                     1,000
<CURRENCY>                                  US DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          26,514
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  224,573
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               251,087
<PP&E>                                       2,369,426
<DEPRECIATION>                                (254,595)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,885,772
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          117,892
<BONDS>                                      1,425,414
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    313,126
<COMMON>                                       937,269
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,885,772
<SALES>                                        216,329
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               243,105
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   87,172
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              48,016
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 64,480
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             64,480
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    44,739
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .70
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002     In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of LIN TV Corp. for thethree months ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, Vincent L. Sadusky, President and Chief Executive Officerof the Company, and Bart W. Catalane, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of theCompany hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and     (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.   Dated: August 9, 2007 s/ Vincent L. Sadusky     Vincent L. SaduskyPresident and Chief Executive Officer   Dated: August 9, 2007 s/ Bart W. Catalane     Bart W. CatalaneSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

April 24, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver 132767 Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, FOUAD NAKHLE, Justices Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 132767 COA: 267553 Wayne CC: 03-332445-NI JANET B. NAKHLE and FATME MOHAMAD HAMMOUD, Defendants-Appellees.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 7, 2006 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

d0416 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

April 24, 2007

Clerk
EXHIBIT 31.2

                                 CERTIFICATIONS

I, Anthony Principe, certify that:

      1) I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of On2 Technologies,
Inc.:

      2) Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual
report;

      3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual 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 annual report;

      4) The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined) in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

            a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 annual report is
      being prepared;

            b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
      controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing
      date of this annual report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

            c) presented in this annual report our conclusions about the
      effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
      evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

      5) The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit
committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent function):

            a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of
      internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to
      record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified
      for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal
      controls; and

            b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
      other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
      controls; and

      6) The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
annual report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls
or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent
to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.


By: /s/ ANTHONY PRINCIPE
    -------------------------------
    Anthony Principe
    Chief Financial Officer


Date: March 29, 2004
STATE v. Juan Carlos BENITEZ.

No. 24PA15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Aug. 20, 2015.

Anne M. Gomez, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Benitez, Juan Carlos.

Staples S. Hughes.

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

Vernon K. Stewart, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 30th of June 2015 by *851Defendant to Strike Paragraph in Defendant's New Brief for Inadvertent Inaccuracy:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of August 2015."
# CE2004078EN.01069301.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/693 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/693

---

(2004/C 78 E/0740)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3908/02

by Caroline Lucas (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(14 January 2003)

Subject:   Malta

Subject:

It is understood that during accession negotiations, the EU granted Malta a derogation for spring hunting of common quail coturnix coturnix and turtle dove streptopelia turtur on the islands. The Commission has previously stated that this derogation is subject to ‘strict conditions’.

Could the Commission please explain why Malta was granted a derogation in the first place?

Could the Commission also clarify what these ‘strict conditions’ are and what concession, if any, is Malta obliged to give for such a derogation? Furthermore, how does the Commission propose to monitor Malta's respect of its commitments in this area?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(14 February 2003)

(14 February 2003)

With regard to hunting of common quail coturnix coturnix and turtle dove streptopelia turtur, Malta has not been given a derogation beyond the provisions of Article 9 of the Birds Directive (1). Article 9 of this Council Directive allows, where there is no other satisfactory solution, for exceptions under certain very stringent conditions.

1

This means that, if Malta wishes to allow spring hunting for these species, it would need to ensure that all the requirements of Article 9 are met and that hunting is carried out under ‘strictly supervised conditions’ and limited to ‘small numbers’ only. Furthermore, the recourse to Article 9 is subject to regular monitoring by the Commission and Malta is committed, in such a case, to report each year on its possible use.

---

(1)  Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds, OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.

1

---
STATE of North Carolina v. Kenneth Michael BOEKENOOGEN.

No. 689P01-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

February 5, 2009.

Kenneth Boekenoogen, Pro Se.

Robert Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, David Saacks, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 5th day of February 2009 in this matter for a writ of mandamus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Durham County:

"Dismissed by order of the Court in Conference this the 5th day of February 2009."
STATE of North Carolina v. Benjamin Eric DARBY.

No. COA15-482.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Oct. 20, 2015.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

No Error.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                      ORTHODONTIC CENTERS OF AMERICA, INC.
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended September 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the "Report"), of Orthodontic Centers of America, Inc. (the
"Company"), I, Bartholomew F. Palmisano, Sr., Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted 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, as amended; and

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



November 14, 2003                           /s/ Bartholomew F. Palmisano, Sr.
                                            -----------------------------------
                                            Bartholomew F. Palmisano, Sr.
                                            Chairman of the Board, President and
                                            Chief Executive Officer
In the Matter of J.Z.M., R.O.M., R.D.M.

No. 366A07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 24, 2008.

Tyrone C. Wade, Charlotte, James E. Yeager, Jr., for Mecklenburg County DSS.

*272Teresa M. Sprain, Raleigh, Sarah Motley, Charlotte, for Guardian ad Litem.

Matthew McKay, for GAL.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 19th day of September 2007 by Respondent (Mother) to Strike Certain Portions of New Briefs filed by DSS and GAL:

"Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference this the 24th day of January 2008."
STATE v. Mario LLAMAS-HERNANDEZ.

No. 220A08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 10, 2008.

Scott K. Beaver, Assistant Attorney General, Peter S. Gilchrist, III, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 9th day of June 2008 by Defendant for Extension of Time to File Brief:

"Motion Allowed. Defendant (Llamas-Hernandez) shall have up to and including the 30th day of June 2008 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court. By order of the Court in conference this the 10th day of June 2008."
STATE v. COOPER.

No. COA08-527.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed January 20, 2009.

Certification Date February 9, 2009.

Appeal from Wake (06CRS81156).

Case reported without published opinion. Remanded for resentencing.
# Commission Regulation (EU) No 1007/2014Show full title

Commission Regulation (EU) No 1007/2014 of 23 September 2014 establishing a prohibition of fishing for Greenland halibut in            Union waters of IIa and IV; Union and international waters of Vb and VI by vessels flying the flag of Ireland         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Regulation (EU) No 1007/2014                     

# of 23 September 2014

# establishing a prohibition of fishing for Greenland halibut in Union waters of IIa and IV; Union and international waters                        of Vb and VI by vessels flying the flag of Ireland                     

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring                           compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy(1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Council Regulation (EU) No 43/2014(2), lays down quotas for 2014.

(2)According to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation                              by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for                              2014.

(3)It is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

## Article 1U.K.Quota exhaustion

The fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein                     for 2014 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.                  

## Article 2U.K.Prohibitions

Fishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in                     the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited                     to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.                  

## Article 3U.K.Entry into force

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that 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 September 2014

*For the Commission,*                            

*On behalf of the President,*                            

Lowri Evans                            

*Director-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries*                            

## ANNEXU.K.

1

OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.                           

2

Council Regulation (EU) No 43/2014 of 20 January 2014 fixing for 2014 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and                              groups of fish stocks, applicable in Union waters and, to Union vessels, in certain non-Union waters (OJ L 24, 28.1.2014, p. 1).