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

(2004/C 78 E/0132)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2586/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(8 August 2003)

Subject:   New information concerning the refunds for agricultural products exported from the Member States to the Vatican City State

It appears that, in reply to questions E-1477/03 to E-1480/03 (1) on refunds for agricultural products exported from the Member States to the Vatican City State, Mr Fischler, Commissioner, stated on 21 May 2003 that the Commission was gathering the information it needed in order to be able to answer the questions and that it would pass on the results of its research as soon as possible.

Furthermore, following correspondence with the Italian State Customs Agency (which had been asked for the same information as was requested from the Commission), the questioner was told on 27 May that, unfortunately, not all the information requested was available, but from what was available it emerged that:

A comparison of the data for exports from Italy to the Vatican as ascertained by the Italian Customs System (Source: Datawarehouse — MERCE system) and by the CATS system reveals that, as regards meat imports from Italy, the Vatican:

Will the Commission say:

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(7 October 2003)

The joint reply to Written Questions E-1477/03 (2) to E-1480/03 needed some research and has now been submitted to the Honourable Member.

The main reason for not claiming Community aid on exports of agricultural products is the fact that, for many of these products, simply no export refunds are applicable (for instance: no export refunds are applicable on pig meat). Furthermore, exporters can, for various reasons, choose not to claim for export refunds even if refunds are applicable (for instance: for exports of small quantities, the internal administrative cost of claiming for the refund may be higher than the refund paid).

The Honourable Member has received data from various sources, which all have been collected in a certain context and for certain purposes, and thus have their own significance. For instance, the difference between Comext (the Eurostat foreign trade database; reflects the commercial flux) and CATS (Clearance Audit Trail System; contains Community aids paid) has been explained in the reply to Written Question E-1478/03 (3). Apparent discrepancies are thus not necessarily anomalies, but can reflect another view on the same reality, which makes the different data complementary and not contradictory.

Three extractions from the Comext Database are sent to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

These tables contain data on the export flow from Member States to the Vatican City.

Each table is specialised for a group of products and reflects the value on annual data from 1989 until 2001.

----

(1)OJ C 70 E, 20.3.2004, p. 45.

(2)OJ C 70 E, 20.3.2004, p. 45.

(3)OJ C 70 E, 20.3.2004, p. 45.

----
----

(2004/C 33 E/065)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0677/03

by Marco Cappato (NI) to the Commission

(7 March 2003)

Subject:   Fumigation in certain coffee-growing areas of Colombia

Whilst I was visiting Colombia last week together with the Secretary of the International Anti-Prohibitionist League, Marco Perduca, a number of reports were received about a plan for the imminent fumigation of the coffee-growing areas of Colombia, in the context of a disastrous and indiscriminate campaign of chemical fumigation, from a very high altitude, of vast areas of the country, designed to eradicate coca leaf production and to be carried out in agreement with the US Administration.

In view of the devastating impact of this practice on human health, the environment and socio-economic equilibrium, and the fact that the Commission is carrying out alternative development programmes in some of these areas, has it taken steps to inform the Colombian authorities of its disapproval and the need to suspend immediately the alternative development programmes in those areas as soon as the operation is launched?

How does the Commission intend to try and ensure that the fumigation is not carried out and officially request that the operation be suspended all over Colombia?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(7 April 2003)

The Commission does not support the aerial spraying of illegal crops in Colombia.

The Commission has obtained a political commitment from the Colombian Government that the areas covered by its alternative development projects (that foresee voluntary manual eradication) be exempt from fumigation. The Commission also discusses this issue with the United States' Government, and follows closely developments on the ground.

This position derives in particular from the Commission's view on aerial spraying in the Union, which is that in the future it should be restricted as far as possible, if not banned completely. In its Communication ‘Towards a Thematic Strategy on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides’ (1), the Commission proposes a general ban on aerial spraying, with specific derogation to be authorised by Member States if aerial spraying presents clear advantages and also environmental benefits compared to other spraying methods. This is due to the impact that spray-drift from aerial spraying of pesticides may have on human health and the environment, as well as its possible socio-economic impact, notably on non-targeted areas, inhabited areas, and water (2).

----

(1)  COM(2002) 349 final.

(2)  For details please refer to the following web page: http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/ppps/home.htm.

----
[ARTICLE] 9
<TABLE>
<S>                             <C>
[PERIOD-TYPE]                   9-MOS
[FISCAL-YEAR-END]                          SEP-30-1998
[PERIOD-END]                               JUN-30-1998
[CASH]                                         6301597
[INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS]                               0
[FED-FUNDS-SOLD]                                     0
[TRADING-ASSETS]                                     0
[INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE]                   66159319
[INVESTMENTS-CARRYING]                               0
[INVESTMENTS-MARKET]                                 0
[LOANS]                                       15720367
[ALLOWANCE]                                      25000
[TOTAL-ASSETS]                                89760675
[DEPOSITS]                                    64108823
[SHORT-TERM]                                   8500000
[LIABILITIES-OTHER]                             574383
[LONG-TERM]                                          0
[PREFERRED-MANDATORY]                                0
[PREFERRED]                                          0
[COMMON]                                          8565
[OTHER-SE]                                    16568904
[TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY]                89760675
[INTEREST-LOAN]                                 902837
[INTEREST-INVEST]                              3296665
[INTEREST-OTHER]                                211147
[INTEREST-TOTAL]                               4403803
[INTEREST-DEPOSIT]                             2423252
[INTEREST-EXPENSE]                             2730806
[INTEREST-INCOME-NET]                          1672997
[LOAN-LOSSES]                                        0
[SECURITIES-GAINS]                                3760
[EXPENSE-OTHER]                                 690301
[INCOME-PRETAX]                                1014024
[INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY]                           0
[EXTRAORDINARY]                                      0
[CHANGES]                                            0
[NET-INCOME]                                    613252
[EPS-PRIMARY]                                      .79
[EPS-DILUTED]                                      .78
[YIELD-ACTUAL]                                       0
[LOANS-NON]                                          0
[LOANS-PAST]                                         0
[LOANS-TROUBLED]                                     0
[LOANS-PROBLEM]                                      0
[ALLOWANCE-OPEN]                                 25000
[CHARGE-OFFS]                                        0
[RECOVERIES]                                         0
[ALLOWANCE-CLOSE]                                25000
[ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC]                             25000
[ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN]                                  0
[ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED]                          25000
</TABLE>
STATE v. Robert BISHOP.

No. 223PA15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Nov. 5, 2015.

James R. Grant, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Bishop, Robert.

*765Kimberly N. Callahan, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Calvin Scott Meyers, Raleigh, for Electronic Frontier Foundation.

Patrick Nadolski, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 21st of September 2015 by Eugene Volokh for Admission Pro Hac Vice:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th of November 2015."
----

(2004/C 65 E/188)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2539/03

by Karl-Heinz Florenz (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 July 2003)

Subject:   Chemicals policy — the REACH System

The following questions arise in connection with the Commission proposal for a regulation on the registration, evaluation and authorisation of chemicals (REACH).

The proposal for a regulation affects the food industry in varying degrees:

Re (a) General scope:

Re (b) Registration and authorisation duties:

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(16 September 2003)

The Commission is currently reviewing the draft of the REACH legislation in the light of the responses to the recent Internet consultation. Following this review, the Commission may revise some parts of the draft related to the issues raised in the question. The general aim of the review is to ensure that the draft legislation achieves its aims in the most cost-effective and efficient manner.

As the review of the draft legislation is still in progress, it is not possible to give more detailed responses to the other issues raised by the Honourable Member.

----
# FILED APR 302012 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FORTHE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Clerk, U.S. District &Bankruptcy Courts for the District of 

### Columbia
William Cornelius Gibbs, Jr., Plaintiff,
v. Civil Action No. Eric Holder, U.S. Attorney General, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION 

# 12 0682

This matter is before the Court on review ofplaintiffs

### pro se complaint and application to proceed 

### informapauperis. The application will be granted and the complaint will be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

### § 1915A (requiring dismissal ofa prisoner's complaint upon a determination that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which reliefmay be granted). Plaintiffis an inmate at the United States Penitentiary Hazelton in Bruceton Mills, West Virginia, suing under 

### Bivens v. Six Unknown NamedAgents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), to challenge the constitutionality ofthe statutes under which he was convicted. The gravamen ofthe complaint is that the sentencing court, the United States District Court for the Western District ofNorth Carolina, lackedjurisdiction over plaintiffs criminal prosecution. Because the success ofplaintiffs claim would necessarily void his conviction, plaintiff cannotrecover monetary damages, which is the only available remedy under

### Bivens, without first showing that he has invalidated the convictionby "revers[al] on direct appeal, expunge[ment] by executive order, declar[ation ofinvalidity] by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or ... a federal court's issuance ofa writ ofhabeas corpus." 

### Heck v. Humphrey, 

# 5

### 512 U.S. 477,486-87 (1994); see, e.g., Taylor v. US. Bd. of Parole, 

### 194 F.2d 882,883 (D.C. Cir. 1952) (stating that a motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. 

### § 2255 is the proper vehicle for challenging the constitutionality ofa statute under which a defendant is convicted); Ojo v. I.N.S., 

### 106 F.3d 680,683 (5 1 h 

### Cir. 1997) (explaining that the sentencing court is the only court with jurisdictionto hear a defendant's complaintregarding errors that occurredbefore or during sentencing). Plaintiffhas not shown the invalidation ofhis conviction and, thus, has failed to state a claim upon which reliefcan be granted under Bivens. 

### A separate Order ofdismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.


# <t Date:**April~,** 

### 2012

2



# ..
---

EXHIBIT 23.1




Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm




We have issued our reports dated March 1, 2011, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and internal control over financial reporting included in the Annual Report of Active Power, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended December, 31 2010. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said reports in the Registration Statements of Active Power, Inc. on Form S-8 (File No.-333-43248, File No. 333-56122, File No. 333-104725, File No. 333-115039, File No. 333-123587, File No. 333-132792, File No. 333-144782, File No. 333-150481, File No. 333-157662, File No. 333-165217 and File No. 333-167005) and Form S-3 (File No. 333-123586, File No. 333-161608, and File No. 333-163301).


/s/ Grant Thornton LLP




Dallas, Texas


March 1, 2011
# Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/277Show full title

Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/277 of 19 February 2015 amending Decision 2011/101/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against            Zimbabwe         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/277                     

# of 19 February 2015

# amending Decision 2011/101/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Zimbabwe

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union and in particular Article 29 thereof,

Whereas:

(1)On 15 February 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/101/CFSP(1).

(2)The Council has carried out a review of Decision 2011/101/CFSP, taking into account political developments in Zimbabwe.

(3)The restrictive measures should be renewed until 20 February 2016.

(4)The application of the travel ban and asset freeze should be maintained for two persons and one entity set out in Annex I                              to Decision 2011/101/CFSP. The suspension of the travel ban and asset freeze for persons and entities as listed in Annex II                              to that Decision should also be renewed. The names of five deceased persons should be removed from Annex I and II to that                              Decision.

(5)Decision 2011/101/CFSP should be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

# Article 1U.K.

Article 10 of Decision 2011/101/CFSP is replaced by the following:

# ‘Article 10

1.This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.                  

2.This Decision shall apply until 20 February 2016.                  

3.The measures referred to in Articles 4(1), 5(1) and 5(2), in so far as they apply to persons and entities listed in Annex                           II, shall be suspended until 20 February 2016.                  

The suspension shall be reviewed every three months.                  

4.This Decision shall be kept under constant review and shall be extended, or amended as appropriate, if the Council deems that                           its objectives have not been met.’.                  

# Article 2U.K.

The names of the persons listed in the Annex to this Decision shall be removed from Annex I and II to Decision 2011/101/CFSP.

# Article 3U.K.

This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union.*                   

Done at Brussels, 19 February 2015.

*For the Council*                            

*The President*                            

E. Rinkēvičs                            

## ANNEXU.K.

1

Council Decision 2011/101/CFSP of 15 February 2011 concerning restrictive measures against Zimbabwe (OJ L 42, 16.2.2011, p. 6).
**EXHIBIT 10.7****Compensation Arrangements with Remer Y. Brinson, III**     Neither Georgia-Carolina Bancshares, Inc. (“Company”), nor First Bank of Georgia (“Bank”), hasa written employment agreement with Remer Y. Brinson, III, President and Chief Executive Officer ofFirst Bank of Georgia. Mr. Brinson’s current (2007) annual salary is $225,000 and Mr. Brinson iseligible for an annual incentive award under the Bank’s Annual Incentive Plan, pursuant to which hereceived $28,769 in 2006. *See*Exhibit 10.8 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year endedDecember 31, 2006 for a description of the Annual Incentive Plan. Mr. Brinson is eligible forstock option grants under the Company’s option plans as determined from time to time by the Boardof Directors of the Company. In addition, Mr. Brinson participates in the Bank’s medical, dental,life and disability insurance plans and he may participate in the Company’s 401(k) plan. Mr.Brinson also receives the following perquisites: payment of private and civic club membership dues, provision of an automobileand an automobile allowance. The aggregate value of these perquisites in 2006 was less than$10,000.     Mr. Brinson has entered into a Severance Protection Agreement with the Bank, which entitleshim to certain payments following a change in control of the Company. The Severance ProtectionAgreement is filed with this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006 asExhibit 10.6.
Exhibit 32.1

SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

In connection with the Annual Report of enherent Corp. (the
Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Pamela Fredette, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, adopted as 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; and

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



/s/    PAMELA
FREDETTEPamela FredetteChairman, Chief Executive Officer and President


March 29, 2007

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting, the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written
statement required by Section 906, has been provided to enherent, Corp. and will be retained by enherent Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
     THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT  OF  OPERATIONS AND CASH FLOWS FOR THE NINE MONTH ENDED
SEPTEMBER 31, 1996, AND  THE  CONSOLIDATED  BALANCE SHEET  AS OF SEPTEMBER 30,
1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE  TO  SUCH PERIOD END REPORT
OR FORM 10QSB.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>   1,000
       
<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                          JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                            SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         1770
<SECURITIES>                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  1613
<ALLOWANCES>                                    252
<INVENTORY>                                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               2875
<PP&E>                                         3620
<DEPRECIATION>                                 1459
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                10324
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           799
<BONDS>                                           0
<COMMON>                                          6
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     8060
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  10324
<SALES>                                        2418
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               2418
<CGS>                                          1797
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  1797
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 675
<INCOME-TAX>                                     11
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             664
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                    664
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   .12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   .11
        


</TABLE>
In the Matter of R.P. D.

No. COA15-330.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Oct. 6, 2015.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 32.1



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 of March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:



(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.





|                     |                                                        
|-------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------
|                     |                                                        
|Dated:  May 19, 2008 | By:Ralph M. AmatoRalph M. Amato
Chief Executive Officer
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED MARCH 1, 2022

NO. 03-21-00567-CV

Scott D. McHenry, Appellant

v.

Lonnie S. Jones, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 98TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES GOODWIN, BAKER, AND TRIANA

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION -- OPINION BY JUSTICE TRIANA

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the trial court on October 5, 2021. Having 

reviewed the record, the Court holds that Scott D. McHenry has not prosecuted his appeal and 

did not comply with a notice from the Clerk of this Court. Therefore, the Court dismisses the 

appeal for want of prosecution. The appellant shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in 

this Court and in the court below.
STATE v. WHITE.

No. COA08-837.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed January 20, 2009.

Certification Date February 9, 2009.

Appeal from Burke (06CRS3274, 06CRS3275).

Case reported without published opinion. Dismissed.
In the Matter of A.L.M.M., J.D.W., C.D.M., and M.L.M.

No. COA15-263.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Sept. 1, 2015.

**CASE REPORTED WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINON**

Affirmed.