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

(2004/C 65 E/181)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2510/03

by Roberto Bigliardo (UEN) to the Commission

(29 July 2003)

Subject:   Rental of the City Center Building

The Commission's Brussels Office for infrastructures and logistics (OIB) is about to rent the City Centre Building near the Gare du Nord district even though the administration's health and safety unit has advised it not to do so.

The Brussels property lobby has been attempting for years, without success, to persuade the Commission to establish a third centre of activity for the European institutions in the Gare du Nord district.

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(3 November 2003)

Consideration of the ‘City Center’ as a possible location for Commission staff originated from a request of the administrative services of the Parliament to occupy the ‘Montoyer 75’ building (MO75). The Commission responded positively to this request and asked the OIB to search for a new building in which to relocate the officials of the Directorate General for Research and Technological Development (DG RTD) who currently occupy MO75.

Over an extended period the Parliament had itself commenced negotiations to lease City Center for its own requirements if it became evident that an exchange with the Commission was not possible. In the apparent absence of alternative options which would have allowed the Commission to vacate MO75 by the date requested by the Parliament, OIB took over these negotiations. After due consideration it was recognised that City Center would not be suitable, and OIB therefore continued to work to finding better alternatives, within or close to the European quarter. Despite some complications, discussions on a more suitable option are now progressing, and the promoters of the City Center project have been informed that Commission services will not be taking this building.

For the record, it should be noted that the CSHT (Comité de Sécurité et Hygiène au Travail) of the Commission in Brussels did not reach either a negative or a positive opinion on the suitability of City Center and the USHT (Unité de Sécurité et Hygiène au Travail) laid down a number of conditions to be fulfilled for occupying the building. It is consequently not strictly accurate to suggest that consideration of the possibility of renting City Center was against the advice of health and safety specialists in the Commission.

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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER>   1000
       
<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                          JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                            MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                       11176 
<SECURITIES>                                     0 
<RECEIVABLES>                                 2024 
<ALLOWANCES>                                     0 
<INVENTORY>                                      0 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             13381 
<PP&E>                                       10246 
<DEPRECIATION>                                3856 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               25062 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         2589 
<BONDS>                                          0 
<COMMON>                                         9 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0 
<PREFERRED>                                      0 
<OTHER-SE>                                   20915 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 25062 
<SALES>                                          0 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              3717 
<CGS>                                            0 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 3311 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 0 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               0 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                531 
<INCOME-TAX>                                    76 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              0 
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0 
<CHANGES>                                        0 
<NET-INCOME>                                   454 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .05 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .04 
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

__________________________________________

)

LOUIS VUITTON MALLETIER, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil No. 07-273 (RCL)

)

VARIOUS JOHN DOES NOS. 1–300, and )

XYZ COMPANIES NOS. 1–20, )

)

Defendants. )

__________________________________________)

MEMORANDUM

The Court will, in a separate Order issued today, grant plaintiff’s Motion [64] for Entry of

Default Judgment. The Clerk of the Court entered default as to all defendants on February 17,

2009. All defendants have failed to respond to the entry of default.

Several of the default notices were returned as undeliverable after being mailed to certain

defendants. This does not affect the Court’s ability to enter default, as it is each party’s

responsibility to keep the Court appraised of any changes of address. See Local Civ. R. 11.1. 

Also, notice of the entry of default against defendant Tore Britbil was not mailed because he has

no fixed address known by the Court. Again, the defendant—having been personally served on

December 6, 2008 (see Return of Service [48])—is responsible for appraising the Court of an

address for correspondence, and defendant Britbil’s failure to do so does not preclude default

judgment.

Signed by Royce C. Lamberth, Chief Judge, on March 31, 2009.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-40818

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ISMAEL GARZA, JR

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:07-CR-341-ALL

Before GARZA, CLEMENT, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

TheFederal Public Defender appointed to represent Ismael Garza, Jr. has

moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Garza has not filed a response. Our

independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous

issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 20, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
Jeffrey HUGGINS, Employee v. MARLATEX CORPORATION, Employer and New Hampshire Insurance, Carrier.

No. 188A15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Sept. 24, 2015.

Jeffrey C. Huggins, for Huggins, Jeffrey.

Cameron Sherod Wesley, Charlotte, for Marlatex Corporation, et al.

David Galbavy, Charlotte, for Marlatex Corporation, et al.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by the Plaintiff on the 8th of June 2015 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 Defendants, 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 24th of September 2015."
Justin LLOYD v. Daniel BAILEY, in his individual and official capacity as Sheriff of Mecklenburg County, and Ohio Casualty Insurance Company.

No. 181PA15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Aug. 20, 2015.

Sean F. Perrin, Charlotte, for Bailey, Daniel, et al.

Harvey L. Kennedy, Winston-Salem, for Lloyd, Justin.

Harold L. Kennedy, III, Winston-Salem, for Lloyd, Justin.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by the Plaintiff on the 26th of May 2015 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 defendant, 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 20th of August 2015."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 26th of May 2015 by Plaintiff 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:

> "Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of August 2015."

Therefore the case is docketed as of the date of this order's certification. Briefs of the respective parties shall be submitted to this Court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 15(g)(2).

Plaintiff shall forthwith submit an appeal bond to this Court, as provided by Appellate Rule 17(b). The bond may be in cash or by a written undertaking with good and sufficient surety in the sum of $250.00.
Exhibit 32

          CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL
                                    OFFICER
                                   PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     The  undersigned  hereby  certifies,  pursuant  to, and as required  by, 18
U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of  2002,  that  the  Quarterly  Report  of  Hauppauge  Digital,  Inc.  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-Q for the period ended  December 31, 2004 fully  complies
with the  requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended, and that information  contained in such Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.


Dated: February 14, 2005                  /s/ Kenneth Plotkin
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          Kenneth Plotkin
                                          Chief Executive Officer


                                          /s/ Gerald Tucciarone
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          Gerald Tucciarone
                                          Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
## NO. 12

- 21

- 00211

- CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

MONTANA ROGERS

, AP P

ELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

, APPELLEE §

§

§ APPEAL FROM THE 7TH

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

P

ER CURIAM

Appellant , Mo n tana Rogers, filed a motion to dismiss this appea l. The motion is signed

by Appellant an d Appellant ’ s counsel. No decision has been delivered in this appeal.

Accordingly, Appellant’s motion to dismiss is granted, and the appeal i s dismissed

. See T EX

. R.

A PP

. P. 42.2 (a).

Opinion delivered February 9 , 2022.

Panel consisted of Worth en, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

( D O N O T P UBLISH )

## COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

FEBRUARY 9 , 2022

NO. 12

- 21

- 00211

- CR

MONTANA ROGERS

, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TE XAS

, Appel lee

Appeal from the 7th District Court

of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 007

- 1909

- 20 )

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the motion of the Appellant to dismiss

the appeal herein, and the same being considered, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and

DECREED by this Court that the motion to dismiss be granted and the appeal be dismissed, and

that the decision be certified to the court below for observance.

By per curiam opinion

. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.
JOHNSON v. WALKER.

No. COA07-523.

No. COA07-642.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed May 6, 2008.

Certification Date May 27, 2008.

Appeal from Durham (06CVS4077).

Case reported without published opinion. Reversed and remanded.
Stephen A. BEST-EL/BEY v. STATE of North Carolina.

No. 205P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 23, 2015.

Stephen A. Best, for Best, Stephen A.

Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of N.C.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the application filed by Petitioner on the 22nd of June 2015 in this matter for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Pitt County:

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 23rd of June 2015."
----

(2004/C 65 E/278)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3047/03

by Elspeth Attwooll (ELDR), Heinz Kindermann (PSE), John McCartin (PPE-DE) and Willi Görlach (PSE) to the Commission

(17 October 2003)

Subject:   Recreational fisheries and tourism statistics

The Commission and Council are aware that there is a need to improve the common statistical base on tourism. A common platform of know-how is a precondition for benchmarking, for change of views, for learning and for addressing strategic problems in the tourism sector. Also that there is a need to develop statistically valid and comparable data on tourism. A common goal is to initiate the implementation of national Tourism Satellite Accounts (TSA) in the Member States. Recreational fisheries (angling tourism) are a significant part of the European tourism sector.

Will the Commission make sure that recreational fisheries are measured and their figures mentioned in their own right within the overall frame for tourism statistics?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(18 November 2003)

The Commission would like to draw the attention to the usefulness of the existing statistical legislation (Directive 95/57/EC) (1) for the production of internationally comparable statistics in the field of tourism. Its implementation in the Member States has led to constant progress in the availability of valid and comparable data on tourism. This data is published regularly by the Commission. As regards the Acceding Countries, major progress has been made, so that they can provide the same level of information as the present Member States at the moment when they will be joining the Union on 1 May 2004.

In the above-mentioned Directive, many breakdowns of the data are already requested, such as breakdowns by nationality, by length of stay or by principal mode of transport. No breakdown is requested concerning the type of holidays. As a result, it is not possible to distinguish recreational fisheries (or any other type of holiday) in the tourism statistics. In order to limit response burden, an introduction of additional breakdowns is not foreseen.

----

(1)  Council Directive 95/57/EC of 23 November 1995 on the collection of statistical information in the field of tourism, OJ L 291, 6.12.1995.

----
JOHNSON v. THOMASVILLE FURNITURE CO.

No. COA08-610.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed February 17, 2009.

Certification Date March 9, 2009.

Appeal from NC Industrial Commission (I.C. NO. 455846).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 32.1
                   CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORTS


Each of the undersigned hereby certifies that this Quarterly Report on Form
10-QSB  complies  with  the  requirements  of  Section  13(a)  or  15(d)  of the
Securities  Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,  and the information  contained in
such report fairly represents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company.


May 15, 2007                                      May 15, 2007


/s/ Jeffrey L. Minch                              /s/ Richard S. Chilinski
Jeffrey L. Minch,                                 Richard S. Chilinski,
President and Chief Executive Officer             Chief Financial Officer

                                       21
### MANDATE



## Court of Appeals

**First District of Texas**

NO. 01

- 13

- 00299

- CR

ROBERT EARL SCHIELE , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

Appeal from the 411th District Court of Polk County. (Tr. Ct. No. 22467).

TO THE 411TH DISTRICT COURT OF POLK COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before this Court, on the 19th day of February 2015, the case upon appeal to

revise or to reverse your judgment was determined. This Court made its order in thes e

words:

This case is an appeal from the final judgment signed

by the trial court on March 7, 2013. After submitting the case

on the appellate record and the arguments properly raised by

the parties, the Court holds that the trial court’s judgment

contain s no reversible error. Accordingly, the Court affirms

the trial court’s judgment.

The Court orders that this decision be certified below

for observance.

Judgment rendered February 19, 2015.Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Higley, and Huddle.

Opinion delivered by Justice Huddle.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court

in this behalf and in all things to have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

June 19, 2015

Date CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE

CLERK OF THE COURT
# CE2004070EN.01013502.xml

| 20.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 70/135 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 70/135

---

(2004/C 70 E/138)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2754/03

by Samuli Pohjamo (ELDR) to the Commission

(15 September 2003)

Subject:   The possibility for Commission translators to work in their home countries

Subject:

It has been put to me that Commission translators could be given more flexible opportunities than at present to work from their home countries. Given modern technology, this would be perfectly possible. Some Commission translators — both officials and those on contract — feel that ‘compulsory’ posting to Brussels detracts from their quality of life.

Aspects which are perceived as particularly problematic are the cost of housing and personal difficulties in acclimatising to life in the big city. It may also be observed that if translators worked in their home countries, this would cost the Commission less. More permanent residence in the home country would also perform an important role in helping translators to keep in touch with their own culture and thus in maintaining their professional skills.

Could translators be offered more flexible working conditions by making it the norm for them to work from their home countries?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(25 November 2003)

(25 November 2003)

The Commission understands the considerations put by the Honourable Member but has to confirm that officials working as translators have the same rights and obligations as other officials and they are employed under the same terms and conditions of the ‘Regulations and Rules applicable to officials and other servants of the European Communities’. They must, therefore, comply with Article 20 of the Staff Regulations, which provides that:

| | An official shall reside either in the place where he is employed or at no greater distance therefrom as is compatible with the proper performance of his duties. |
| --- | --- |

An official shall reside either in the place where he is employed or at no greater distance therefrom as is compatible with the proper performance of his duties.

As a result, to allow officials who do not originate from the country in which they are employed to work on a permanent full-time basis from their home countries would not normally be regarded to be in accordance with the requirements of the Staff Regulations. The same provision also applies to translators employed in exceptional cases as auxiliary agents or temporary agents.

The Commission does not intend to derogate from this provision in the context of the introduction of telework schemes.

---
STATE v. Reginal FULLARD.

No. 455P14-4.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Jan. 28, 2016.

Reginald Fullard, Lumberton, for Fullard, Reginald.

Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of N.C.

James R. O'Neill, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 18th of November 2015 by Defendant for Evidence Hearing:

> "Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 28th of January 2016."
## 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

o f Ta rrant 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 judg ment. It is ordered that the judgment of

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Bob McCoy

__________________ Justice Bob McCoy
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3653 

To amend the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 to provide for country 

of origin labeling for dairy products. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 29 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 17), 2008 

Mrs. CLINTON (for herself, Mr. FEINGOLD, and Mr. BROWN) introduced the 

following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry 

A BILL 

To amend the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 to provide 

for country of origin labeling for dairy products. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Dairy COOL Act of 

5 2008’’. 

6 SEC. 2. COUNTRY OF ORIGIN LABELING FOR DAIRY PROD7 UCTS. 

8 (a) DEFINITIONS.—Section 281 of the Agricultural 

9 Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1638) is amended— 

10 (1) in paragraph (2)— 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
2 

•S 3653 IS

1 (A) in subparagraph (A)— 

2 (i) in clause (x), by striking ‘‘and’’ at 

3 the end; 

4 (ii) in clause (xi), by striking the pe5 riod at the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

6 (iii) by adding at the end the fol7 lowing: 

8 ‘‘(xii) dairy products.’’; and 

9 (B) in subparagraph (B), by inserting 

10 ‘‘(other than clause (xii) of that subpara11 graph)’’ after ‘‘subparagraph (A)’’; 

12 (2) by redesignating paragraphs (3) through 

13 (9) as paragraphs (4) through (10), respectively; 

14 and 

15 (3) by inserting after paragraph (2) the fol16 lowing: 

17 ‘‘(3) DAIRY PRODUCT.—The term ‘dairy prod18 uct’ means— 

19 ‘‘(A) fluid milk; 

20 ‘‘(B) cheese, including cottage cheese and 

21 cream cheese; 

22 ‘‘(C) yogurt; 

23 ‘‘(D) ice cream; 

24 ‘‘(E) butter; and 

25 ‘‘(F) any other dairy product.’’. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
3 

•S 3653 IS

1 (b) NOTICE OF COUNTRY OF ORIGIN.—Section 

2 282(a) of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 

3 U.S.C. 1638a(a)) is amended by adding at the end the 

4 following: 

5 ‘‘(5) DESIGNATION OF COUNTRY OF ORIGIN

6 FOR DAIRY PRODUCTS.— 

7 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—A retailer of a covered 

8 commodity that is a dairy product shall des9 ignate the origin of the covered commodity as— 

10 ‘‘(i) each country in which or from the 

11 1 or more dairy ingredients or dairy com12 ponents of the covered commodity were 

13 produced, originated, or sourced; and 

14 ‘‘(ii) each country in which the cov15 ered commodity was processed. 

16 ‘‘(B) STATE, REGION, LOCALITY OF THE

17 UNITED STATES.—With respect to a covered 

18 commodity that is a dairy product produced ex19 clusively in the United States, designation by a 

20 retailer of the State, region, or locality of the 

21 United States where the covered commodity 

22 was produced shall be sufficient to identify the 

23 United States as the country of origin.’’. 

Æ 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS