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

(2004/C 33 E/104)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1292/03

by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission

(4 April 2003)

Subject:   Export of live cattle to third countries

How many live cattle for (i) slaughter, (ii) fattening and (iii) breeding were exported in 2002 from each Member State to each individual third country of destination?

How much was paid out in export refunds in 2002 in respect of the export of live cattle from the EU to third countries for (i) slaughter, (ii) fattening and (iii) breeding?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2003)

A table which shows the quantities of Union exports of live bovine animals for 2002 by Member State and country of destination, is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

Based on export licences for live bovine animals issued in 2002, export refunds amount to:

----

(1)  No separate figures are available for animals for slaughter and for other animals.

----
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-13-00567-CR

Richard Clifton Cranfill

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

From the 213th District Court

of Tarrant County (1288773D)

October 2, 2014

Opinion by Justice McCoy

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of 

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Bob McCoy__________________

 Justice Bob McCoy
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>    5

<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information
extracted from the financial statements of The Associated
Group, Inc. as of and for the three months ended March 31,
1997 included in Form 10-Q for the quarter ending March 31,
1997 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                      JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                        MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                2,802
<SECURITIES>                              0<F1>
<RECEIVABLES>                         7,074
<ALLOWANCES>                          2,470
<INVENTORY>                           1,630
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                     12,441
<PP&E>                               54,173
<DEPRECIATION>                       26,052
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                      505,463
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>               125,900
<BONDS>                               8,156
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                               0
<COMMON>                              1,878
<OTHER-SE>                          241,294
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>        505,463
<SALES>                                 189
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                      5,642
<CGS>                                   128
<TOTAL-COSTS>                         3,087
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                      2,909
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        266
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                    1,566
<INCOME-PRETAX>                     (11,449)
<INCOME-TAX>                         (2,343)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                  (9,106)
<DISCONTINUED>                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                         (9,106)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                         (0.48)
<EPS-DILUTED>                             0

<FN>
Does not include $405,508 of noncurrent marketable equity securities.
</FN>
        



</TABLE>
# Council Decision (EU) 2015/214Show full title

Council Decision (EU) 2015/214 of 10 February 2015 endorsing the Shift2Rail Master Plan

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Council Decision (EU) 2015/214                     

# of 10 February 2015

# endorsing the Shift2Rail Master Plan

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EU) No 642/2014 of 16 June 2014 establishing the Shift2Rail Joint Undertaking, and in                           particular Article 1(4) of Annex I thereto(1),                        

Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,

Whereas:

(1)The Shift2Rail Master Plan should be established and developed by the Shift2Rail Joint Undertaking, in consultation with the                              European Railway Agency and the European Rail Research Advisory Council (ERRAC) Technology Platform, to drive innovation in                              the rail sector in the long term.

(2)The Shift2Rail Master Plan should identify the key priorities and the essential operational and technological innovations                              required from all stakeholders to achieve the objectives of the Shift2Rail Joint Undertaking outlined in Regulation (EU) No                              642/2014.

(3)The Shift2Rail Master Plan should be performance driven and structured around a limited number of key thematic areas or Innovation                              Programmes as identified in Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 642/2014.

(4)The version of the Shift2Rail Master Plan approved by the Governing Board on 24 September 2014 and integrating major contributions                              from relevant stakeholders, constitutes the basis for the call for associated members launched by the Commission on 6 October                              2014 in accordance with Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 642/2014 and the basis for establishing the Shift2Rail Joint Undertaking's                              work plan,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

# Sole ArticleU.K.

The Shift2Rail strategic Master Plan is hereby endorsed.

Done at Brussels, 10 February 2015.

*For the Council*                            

*The President*                            

E. Rinkēvičs                            

1

OJ L 177, 17.6.2014, p. 9.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONSOLIDATED
BALANCE SHEET AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  105,360
<ALLOWANCES>                                    16,494
<INVENTORY>                                     11,122
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               106,522
<PP&E>                                         213,007
<DEPRECIATION>                                  26,878
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 502,213
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           42,498
<BONDS>                                        259,992
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           157
<OTHER-SE>                                     184,202
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   502,213
<SALES>                                        343,306
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                46,692
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  192,527
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                25,572
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              13,901
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 25,649
<INCOME-TAX>                                    11,148
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             14,501
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    14,501
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.92
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.91


</TABLE>
STATE v. DOSTER.

No. COA08-925.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed January 20, 2009.

Certification Date February 9, 2009.

Appeal from Forsyth(07CRS52229).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 31.3

 

CERTIFICATION

 

I, Scott L.N. Davidson, certify that:

 

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

 

2.        Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.

 

Date:        May 1, 2017

|        |        |                                                                                                        |        |
|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |   |                                                                                                   |   |
|   | By:    | /s/ SCOTT L. N. DAVIDSON                                                                               |   |
|   |   | Name:  Scott L. N. Davidson                                                                  |   |
|   |   | Title:    Chief Executive Officer and President                                              |   |
|   |   |              (Principal Executive Officer) |   |
|   |
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Angel Caba, Appellant.

[801 NYS2d 153]

Judgment Supreme Court, Bronx County (John E Collins, J.), rendered April 29, 2004, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 4V2 to 9 years, and imposing, inter alia, a DNA databank fee of $50, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of vacating the DNA databank fee, and otherwise affirmed.

As the People concede, since the crime was committed prior to the effective date of the legislation (Penal Law § 60.35 [1] [a] [v] [former (1) (e)]) providing for the imposition of a DNA databank fee, that fee should not have been imposed. Concur— Friedman, J.P., Sullivan, Nardelli, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.
# CE2004088EN.01006501.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/65 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/65

---

(2004/C 88 E/0070)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2078/03

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(17 June 2003)

Subject:   Portuguese milk quota

Subject:

In a recent meeting with milk producers in northern Portugal, the author of this question was made aware of the unfair treatment being inflicted on Portuguese farmers who exceeded the milk quota by the end of March.

These farmers have been penalised, whereas, by contrast, it has just been reported in Italy that an agreement has been reached to settle the problems of Italian farmers in the same situation.

Can the Commission provide information on the specific conditions of the Italian agreement and state what measures it plans or intends to take to remedy the unfair treatment of the Portuguese farmers?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(7 July 2003)

(7 July 2003)

The question would seem to refer to a decision taken by the Council on its own initiative, under the special procedure provided for in the third subparagraph of Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty, and falls outside the competence of the Commission. The question should therefore be addressed to the Council.

---
----

(2004/C 65 E/128)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2208/03

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(2 July 2003)

Subject:   Labelling of ‘free-range’ produce

Can the Commission indicate what minimum conditions must apply before eggs can be labelled ‘free-range’?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(1 August 2003)

Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1274/91 of 15 May 1991 introducing detailed rules for implementing Council Regulation (EEC) No 1907/90 on certain marketing standards for eggs (1) lays down the criteria to be respected in the case of eggs to be labelled as ‘free-range’.

The Annex III of Regulation (EC) No 1274/91 reads like this:

----

(1)OJ L 121, 16.5.1991.

----
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 475 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 475

     To increase the number of Deputy United States Marshals that 
                    investigate immigration crimes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            February 1, 2007

 Mr. Domenici (for himself and Mr. Bingaman) introduced the following 
    bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the 
                               Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To increase the number of Deputy United States Marshals that 
                    investigate immigration crimes.

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

SECTION 1. DEPUTY UNITED STATES MARSHALS.

    (a) Increase Positions.--In each of the fiscal years 2008 through 
2012, the Attorney General, subject to the availability of 
appropriations, shall increase by not less than 50 the number of 
positions for full-time active duty Deputy United States Marshals that 
investigate criminal matters related to immigration.
    (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized to be 
appropriated to the Attorney General such sums as may be necessary for 
each of the fiscal years 2008 through 2012 to carry out subsection (a).
                                 <all>
```
# C_2023314EN.01002401.xml

| 4.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/24

---

Action brought on 13 July 2023 — Salzburger Sparkasse Bank v SRB

(Case T-407/23)

(2023/C 314/29)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Salzburger Sparkasse Bank (Salzburg, Austria) (represented by: G. Eisenberger, A. Brenneis and J. Holzmann, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 2 May 2023 on the calculation of the 2023 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/2023/23) together with annexes, at least in so far as it concerns the applicant, and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 2 May 2023 on the calculation of the 2023 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/2023/23) together with annexes, at least in so far as it concerns the applicant, and

| — | order the Single Resolution Board to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Single Resolution Board to pay the costs.

The applicant further claims that, on account of the connection between and same subject matter of the following cases, they should be joined for the purposes of the written or oral part of the procedure and decision, pursuant to Article 68 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court: T-400/23, Erste Group Bank v SRB, T-401/23, Erste Bank der österreichischen Sparkassen v SRB, T-402/23, Steiermärkische Bank und Sparkasse v SRB, T-403/23, Dornbirner Sparkasse Bank v SRB, T-404/23, Kärntner Sparkasse v SRB, T-405/23, Sparkasse Niederösterreich Mitte West v SRB, T-406/23, Tiroler Sparkasse v SRB, T-407/23, Salzburger Sparkasse Bank v SRB, T-408/23, Sparkasse Oberösterreich Bank v SRB.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law which is identical to that relied on in Case T-400/23, Erste Group Bank v SRB.

---
----

----

|   | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

|                             |                                                                                                                                           |   |
|----------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Date:  August 11, 2011 | /s/ David K. Young                                                                                                                             |   |
|                             | David K. Young                                                                                                                                 |   |
|                             | President, Chief Operating Officer and Acting Chief Financial Officer (Principal  Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer) |   |

----

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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE TWELVE MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                      15,083,419
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  136,766
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            15,974,104
<PP&E>                                       2,160,387
<DEPRECIATION>                                 837,697
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              22,431,872
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,068,672
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                 14,614,113
<COMMON>                                    21,106,003
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                22,431,872
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               178,112
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            10,485,773
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (10,064,609)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    22,933
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (10,087,542)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (10,087,542)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.51)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.51)


</TABLE>
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 67**  **66**

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appell ee ,
v. ISRAEL ARELLANO

- ARELLANO , Defendant

– Appell ant .

Appeal from the United States District Court for the We st ern District of Virginia , at Harrisonburg
. Glen E. Conrad , D istrict Judge. ( 5 : 0 7

- c r - 00 063

- gec - mfu

- 19; 5:10

- cv - 80242

- gec - mfu)

Submitted : July 20, 2010 Decided: July 27, 2010

Before GREGORY, AGEE, and DAVIS , Circuit Judges.

Dismiss e d by un publ ished per curiam opinion
.
Israel Arellano

- Arellano, Appellant Pro Se
. Donald Ray Wolthuis , Assistant United States Attorney, R oanoke , Virginia , for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Israel Arellano

- Arellano seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 ( West Supp. 2010 ) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (200 6 ). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (200 6 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating t hat reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently review ed the record and conclude that Arellano

- Arellano has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny the motions for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately3 presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 18

- 00328

- CR

I VAN H OLBERT

, Appellant

V

.

T HE S TATE OF T EXAS §

§

§

§

§ On Appeal from the 431st District Court

of Denton County (F17

- 12 71

- 431)

August 28, 2019

Opinion by Justice Kerr

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial

court is affirm e d.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By _ /s/ El izabeth Kerr

__________________ Justice Elizabeth Kerr
EXHIBIT 32

                                 CERTIFICATIONS

      Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of AVP, Inc. hereby
certifies, to such officers' knowledge, that this Quarterly Report on Form
10-QSB of AVP, Inc. for the quarter ended September 30, 2006 fully complies, in
all material respects, with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in this Quarterly
Report on Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of AVP, Inc.

Dated: November 14, 2006


                                        By: /s/ Leonard Armato
                                            -----------------------------------
                                            Leonard Armato, Chairman
                                            and Chief Executive Officer


                                        By: /s/ Andrew Reif
                                            -----------------------------------
                                            Andrew Reif, Chief Financial
                                            Officer (Principal Financial
                                            Officer)