alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# CE2004078EN.01014601.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/146 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/146

---

(2004/C 78 E/0151)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2647/03

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(28 August 2003)

Subject:   Use of synthetic prohormones for livestock fattening

Subject:

Reports in the Flemish press suggest that the law enforcement authorities in Belgium are investigating a new livestock fattening product, which promotes the production of testosterone. It is apparently a synthetic version of a natural prohormone. The substance stimulates the brain to produce hormones naturally produced by the body, in this case testosterone. Hormones of this kind are banned in Belgium. According to the report, the hormone also contains dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA), which causes liver damage and probably has other side-effects.

Is the Commission aware of this technique?

If so, what action has it already taken?

If not, does it intend to ask the European Food Safety Authority to issue a scientific opinion on the matter in accordance with Article 29(1)(a) of Regulation (EEC) 178/2002 (1)?

1

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(18 September 2003)

(18 September 2003)

The Commission is aware that so-called pro-hormones can be used to stimulate the natural production of androgenic and oestrogenic hormones in livestock in order to stimulate growth. DHEA is such a substance. This substance is covered by Directive 96/22/EC of 29 April 1996 concerning the prohibition on the use in stockfarming of certain substances having a hormonal or thyrostatic action and of β-agonists (2).

2

It is the responsibility of the Member States to verify compliance with this legislation by applying Council Directive 96/23/EC of 29 April 1996 on measures to monitor certain substances and residues thereof in live animals and animal products (2) and to take the appropriate measures.

2

With the support of the Commission, the Community Reference Laboratory responsible for hormones is gathering the available technical information and is organising a workshop at which the issue will be discussed with the Member States in October 2003.

The Scientific Committee on Veterinary measures relating to Public Health (SCVPH) evaluated the risks to human health from hormone residues in bovine meat and meat products treated with hormones for growth promotion in 1999, in 2000 and again in 2002. The reports are available on http://europa.eu.int/ comm/food/index_en.html. Consequently the Commission does not intend at present to ask the European Food Safety Authority to issue a scientific opinion on the matter, in accordance with Article 29(1)(a) of Regulation (EEC) 178/2002 (3) of the Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety.

3

---

(1)  OJ L 31, 1.2.2002, p. 1.

1

(2)  OJ L 125, 23.5.1996.

2

(3)  OJ L 31, 1.2.2002.

3

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6255

THOMAS LEVON MITCHELL,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

MICHAEL SHEEDY, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Florence. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District

Judge. (4:06-cv-02089-HMH)

Submitted: July 2, 2008 Decided: August 19, 2008

Before MICHAEL, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas Levon Mitchell, Appellant Pro Se. William Edgar Salter,

III, Assistant Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Deputy

Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Thomas Levon Mitchell seeks to appeal the district

court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge

and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Mitchell has

not made the requisite showing. 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
STATE of North Carolina v. Robert B. JACKSON.

No. 498P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

February 5, 2009.

John Keating Wiles, Raleigh, for Jackson.

Robert B. Croom, Assistant Attorney General, Frank R. Parrish, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by the Defendant on the 11th day of November 2008 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30, and the motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question filed by the State of NC, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the motion to dismiss the appeal is

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th day of February 2009."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 11th day of November 2008 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th day of February 2009."
# C_2023329EN.01004001.xml

| 18.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/40

---

Action brought on 28 July 2023 — Sparkasse Essen v SRB

(Case T-474/23)

(2023/C 329/58)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Sparkasse Essen (Essen, Germany) (represented by: F. Kruis and N. Bartmann, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

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; |
| --- | --- |

—

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;

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

—

order the Single Resolution Board to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on eight pleas in law which are identical to those relied on in Case T-410/23, BAWAG PSK v SRB.

---
----

(2004/C 33 E/228)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2125/03

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(25 June 2003)

Subject:   Fixed book prices

In a resolution of 16 May 2002 (P5_TA(2002)0244), the European Parliament called on the Commission to submit to Parliament by the end of 2002 (!!), on the basis of Article 95 of the EC Treaty, a legislative proposal on the fixing of book prices.

Has the Commission drafted a legislative proposal, and can it indicate the substance of the proposal? If not, why has the Commission not acted upon this request by the European Parliament?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(5 August 2003)

On 4 November 2002, the Member of the Commission responsible for the Internal Market informed the Parliament's Legal Affairs and Internal Market Committee that book price fixing systems existed in various Member States in the form of legislation or professional agreements. He explained that these systems had not caused any problems to date with regard to Court of Justice case law in this field.

The Member of the Commission also stated that, in keeping with its commitments to clarify and modernise European legislation, the Commission felt that harmonisation of these national systems would not bring sufficient benefits to justify changes to the legal framework developed by the Court of Justice.

No new information has been received since then to justify changing this analysis.

In addition, as the Member of the Commission pointed out, and following a detailed examination of the Parliament's legislative proposal of 16 May 2002, the Commission considers that the definition of the key concept of ‘circumvention’ established by this proposal is too broad and is likely to significantly impede the free movement of books between Member States, particularly those involved in e-commerce. A broad definition of ‘circumvention’ would also be incompatible with the obligation to interpret restrictively all exceptions to the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the EC Treaty.

The Commission also notes that this approach has been adopted by all the national book price fixing systems, including the German system adopted on 2 September 2002.

It should also be stressed that the proposal for a Commission Regulation on sales promotions implicitly authorises the prices of certain products to be fixed nationally, insofar as provision is made, in this respect, for a specific exception to the ban in principle on Member States limiting the value of sales promotions: by virtue of this exception, the Member States are therefore authorised to specifically limit the value of discounts (and not of other promotions) for fixed-price products.

In view of the above, the Commission has decided, for the moment, not to back the idea of an ad hoc legislative proposal such as that proposed by the Parliament.

At any rate, it is continuing to monitor the implementation of national book price fixing systems and their compliance with Community law. If ever this were to prove necessary, it would consider all practical initiatives.

----
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 693 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 693

  To amend the Public Health Service Act to reauthorize the Automated 
                  Defibrillation in Adam's Memory Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 27, 2007

  Mr. Feingold (for himself and Ms. Collins) introduced the following 
  bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, 
                     Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Public Health Service Act to reauthorize the Automated 
                  Defibrillation in Adam's Memory Act.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Automated Defibrillation in Adam's 
Memory Reauthorization Act''.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE ACT.

    Section 312(e) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 244(e)) 
is amended in the first sentence by striking ``fiscal year 2003'' and 
all that follows through ``2006'' and inserting ``for each of fiscal 
years 2003 through 2011''.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 177 (Wednesday, September 14, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 54374]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-18225]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Rocky 
Flats

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of open meeting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental 
Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EMSSAB), Rocky Flats. The 
Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires 
that public notice of this meeting be announced in the Federal 
Register.

DATES: Thursday, October 6, 2005, 6 p.m. to 9 p.m.

ADDRESSES: College Hill Library, Room L-268, Front Range Community 
College, 3705 W. 112th Avenue, Westminster, Colorado.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ken Korkia, Executive Director, Rocky 
Flats Citizens Advisory Board, 12101 Airport Way, Unit B, Broomfield, 
CO 80021; telephone (303) 966-7855; fax (303) 966-7856.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Purpose of the Board: The purpose of the Board is to make 
recommendations to DOE in the areas of environmental restoration, waste 
management, and related activities.
    Tentative Agenda:
    1. Presentation and Discussion on the Updated Site-Wide Water 
Balance for Rocky Flats.
    2. Approval of the Board's 2006 Work Plan and Budget.
    3. Progress Update on Regulatory Closure Activities at Rocky Flats.
    4. Other Board business may be conducted as necessary.
    Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public. Written 
statements may be filed with the Board either before or after the 
meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral statements pertaining to 
agenda items should contact Ken Korkia at the address or telephone 
number listed above. Requests must be received at least five days prior 
to the meeting and reasonable provisions will be made to include the 
presentation in the agenda. The Deputy Designated Federal Officer is 
empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the 
orderly conduct of business. Individuals wishing to make public comment 
will be provided a maximum of five minutes to present their comments.
    Minutes: The minutes of this meeting will be available for public 
review and copying at the office of the Rocky Flats Citizens Advisory 
Board, 12101 Airport Way, Unit B, Broomfield, CO 80021; telephone (303) 
966-7855. Hours of operations are 7:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through 
Friday. Minutes will also be made available by writing or calling Ken 
Korkia at the address or telephone number listed above. Board meeting 
minutes are posted on RFCAB's Web site within one month following each 
meeting at: http://www.rfcab.org/Minutes.HTML.

    Issued at Washington, DC, on September 8, 2005.
Carol Matthews,
Acting Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 05-18225 Filed 9-13-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
Exhibit 31.2



SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION



I, James C. Minerly, Senior Financial Officer of enherent Corp., certify that:



1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K/A of enherent Corp.;



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 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.



|                        
|------------------------
|/s/ James C. Minerly    
|James C. Minerly        
|Senior Financial Officer
|January 25, 2005
EXHIBIT
4.1

    


    ALLONGE NO 1 TO SECURED
CONVERTIBLE PROMISSORY NOTE

    


    This Allonge No. 1 (“Allonge”) to
Secured Convertible Promissory Note is dated as of this 3rd day of November,
2010.  Reference is hereby made to that certain Secured Convertible
Promissory Note dated April 23, 2010 (“Note”) delivered by Intellect
Neurosciences, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Borrower”) to Alpha Capital
Anstalt, as Lender (“Holder”).

    


    NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the
mutual promises and covenants contained herein and for other good and valuable
consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which are hereby acknowledged, the
parties hereby agree as follows.

    


    Except as expressly amended by the
terms of this Allonge, the terms of the Note remain in full force and
effect.  All capitalized terms used and not defined herein are used as
defined in the Note.  As the context requires, all references herein
to “Note” refer to the Note as amended by this Allonge.

    


    The following term of the Note is
hereby amended by this Allonge:

    


    1.           Principal
Amount.  The principal amount of the Note shall be increased by
an additional $75,000 for an aggregate principal amount of
$275,000.  Interest on the increased portion of the principal amount
of the Note shall accrue at the same rate from and after the date
hereof.

    


    2.           Conversion
Price.  The Conversion Price as defined in Section 2.1(b) of
the Note is $0.0025, subject to further adjustment as provided in the
Transaction Documents.

    


    3.           Miscellaneous.  This
Allonge must be delivered by original signature for Borrower, but the Holder may
execute and deliver by facsimile copy.

    


    
      
        
          
            
              
                
                  	
                          INTELLECT
      NEUROSCIENCES, INC.

                        
	
                          (“Borrower”)

                        
	 
      
	
                          By:

                        	
                            /s/ Elliot Maza

                        	 
      
	 
      	
                           
      Title: President and
CFO
# CE2004084EN.01047401.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/474 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/474

---

(2004/C 84 E/0548)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1696/03

by Danielle Darras (PSE) to the Commission

(15 May 2003)

Subject:   European funds and subcontracting

Subject:

Numerous correspondents have drawn my attention to the planned restructuring within the Arcelor group.

Under this restructuring, two factories in France (Isbergues and Ardoise) are to close, and one new factory at Cariam, Belgium, is to open, thus reducing the total number of jobs in Arcelor. If the Commission is not able to take account of the social consequences of this restructuring as grounds for opposing it, I should like to know whether the Commission can oppose this kind of operation if Arcelor, or the enterprises with which it subcontracts, receive European funding.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(6 June 2003)

(6 June 2003)

According to the records, the Sollac Florange site (which is under threat as a result of the possible termination of Arcelor investment) has not received a contribution from the Community's Structural Funds for the periods 1994-1999 or 2000-2006.

In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, both project selection and the implementation and management of programmes cofinanced by the Structural Funds are the responsibility of the Member States.

The Structural Funds contribute to the funding of operations which fall within the scope and eligible activities defined in the regulations relating to the various Funds. These operations must come under the priority areas and measures selected for assistance from the Funds covering the region concerned. In order to receive assistance from one of the Funds, the operation must also fulfil the selection criteria approved by a monitoring committee which ensures that the assistance is implemented properly and efficiently.

For the current programming period 2000-2006, Article 30 of the Regulation on the Structural Funds (1) provides that an operation retains the contribution from the Funds if that operation does not, within five years of the date of the decision awarding it, undergo a substantial modification affecting its nature or its implementation conditions and resulting either from a cessation or change of location in a productive activity. If this is the case, the Member State must inform the Commission and undertake the financial corrections required, by cancelling all or part of the Community contribution.

1

For the previous programming periods, the regulations did not provide for any means to recover grants awarded under the Structural Funds, provided the operations are carried out and payments made on the basis of the legislation in force.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds, OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

1

---