alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# CE2004088EN.01007801.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/78 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/78

---

(2004/C 88 E/0086)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2321/03

by Freddy Blak (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(14 July 2003)

Subject:   Number of Commission officials dealing with external relations

Subject:

Could the Commission please provide a list of the number of Commission officials in DG-aidco, ECHO and DG-dev broken down per programme and per country both in headquarters and in beneficiary countries?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(13 October 2003)

(13 October 2003)

The table (Annex 1) which is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat, shows for each operational directorate of the EuropeAid Cooperation office the total number of officials dealing with each programme. Auxiliary staff has not been included in the total number reported. All figures relate to the situation at the end of June 2003 unless otherwise stated.

A second table with the requested information from the Humanitarian Aid Office (ECHO) (Annex 2), a third one concerning the Delegations (Annex 3) and a fourth one concerning the Directorate General Development (Annex 4) are sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat as well.

---
Exhibit 32

STATEMENT PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,  AS ENACTED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2009 (the
"Quarterly Report") of Edison Mission Energy (the "Company"), and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as enacted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned
certifies, to the best of his knowledge, that:

Dated:
May 8, 2009

/s/ Ronald L. Litzinger Ronald L. Litzinger
Chief Executive Officer
Edison Mission Energy/s/ John P. Finneran, Jr. John P. Finneran, Jr.
Chief Financial Officer
Edison Mission Energy


This
statement accompanies the Quarterly Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A
signed original of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.

---



QuickLinks
STATE v. JENKINS.

No. COA07-973.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed April 15, 2008.

Certification Date May 5, 2008.

Appeal from Nash (05CRS55132).

Cases reported without published opinion. No error at trial; sentence vacated; remanded for resentencing.
STATE of North Carolina v. James Howard SINK, Jr.

No. 353P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 11, 2008.

Walter C. Holton, Jr., for Sink.

Barry H. Bloch, Assistant Attorney General, Thomas J. Keith, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 29th day of July 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 11th day of December 2008."

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 29th day of July 2008 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

*528"Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 11th day of December 2008."
----

(2004/C 65 E/097)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1623/03

by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(13 May 2003)

Subject:   Implementation of EU Directives by Ireland

Ireland has yet to implement EU Directive 91/676/EEC (1) and has not set limits on the spreading of slurry and fertilisers on farmland in order to protect water quality. Ireland is the only Member State not to have done so.

What steps is the Commission taking to ensure that Ireland complies with this directive? Does the Commission agree that Ireland has a history of non-implementation of EU environmental legislation and that strong action is now needed to ensure that such legislation is quickly and properly enforced?

----

(1)OJ L 375, 31.12.1991, p. 1.

----
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


To the Board of Directors
Clickable Enterprise, Inc and Subsidiaries


We  hereby  consent  to  the   incorporation   by  reference  in  the  foregoing
Registration  Statement on Form S-8 of our report dated June 28, 2004,  relating
to  the  consolidated  financial  statements  of  Clickable  Enterprises,   Inc.
(formerly  Achievement  Tec  Holdings,  Inc.) and  Subsidiary  which  appears in
Clickable  Enterprises,  Inc.'s  Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended
March 31, 2004,  filed with the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on July 21,
2004.



                                                  /s/ WEINBERG & COMPANY, P.A.
                                                  ------------------------------
                                                  WEINBERG & COMPANY, P.A.
                                                  Certified Public Accountants



Boca Raton, Florida
July 21, 2004





  Town Executive Center                                    Watt Plaza
6100 Glades Road Suite 314                     1875 Century Park East Suite 600
Boca Raton, Florida 33434                        Los Angeles, California 90067
Telephone: (561) 487-5765                          Telephone: (310) 407-5450
Fascimile: (561) 487-5766                          Facsimile: (310) 407-5451


                          Website: www.cpaweinberg.com
    American Institute of CPA's\Division for CPA Firms SEC Practice Section
PACE v. WAKE FOREST BAPTIST CHURCH.

No. COA07-755.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed April 1, 2008.

Certification Date April 21, 2008.

Appeal from the Wake (05CV12289).

Cases Reported Without Published Opinion. Affirmed.
Loan
Agreement

    


    Party
A(Borrower):Harbin Humankind
Biology Technology Co., Limited

    


    Party
B(Lender):Xin
Sun

    ID
Number:23010219660523161X

    


    On the
basis of equality, voluntariness and negotiation, both Party A and Party B enter
into this agreement about the loan.

    


    
      I. Party
B loans RMB 10,000 to Party A and provides the loan before February 3,
2009.

    

    II. Interest: No Interest.

    III. Life
of Loan: No fixed terms of repayment.

    IV. Date
and Method of Payments: Party A will make the repayments in cash according to
the operation of its company.

    V. Settlements
of Diputes: apply for arbitration in local arbitration committee.

    VI. This
contract is taken into effect since signing date. This contract is executed in
two copies with the same legal effect. Both parties hold one copy
respectively.

    


    
      
        
          
            	
                    Party
      A(Seal):

                  	
                    Party
      B:

                  
	
                    Harbin
      Humankind Biology

                  	 
      
	
                    Technology
      Co. Limited

                  	
                    /s/
      Xin Sun

                  
	 
      	 
      
	
                    Date:

                  	
                    Date:
      February 2, 2009
RICHARDSON v. BANK OF AMERICA.

No. 240PA07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 26, 2007.

John H. Culver, III, Amy Pritchard Williams, Charlotte, Walter E. Dellinger, III, Washington, DC, McGlinchey Stafford, Anthony J. Rollo, Daniel T. Plunkett, New Orleans, LA, for Bank of America, NationsCredit Financial.

John Alan Jones, G. Christopher Olson, Raleigh, for Richardson, et al.

Burley B. Mitchell, Jr., Jack L. Cozort, Eileen R. Youens, Raleigh, for N.C. Chamber.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 21st day of September 2007 by Amicus Curiae (CCIA) for Leave to Amend Brief:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference this the 26th day of September 2007."
JENKINS v. GILLESPIE.

No. COA08-430.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed November 4, 2008.

Certification Date November 24, 2008.

Appeal from Randolph (05CVD851).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
ELECTROSCOPE, INC. BALANCE SHEET AS OF JUNE 30, 1998 AND STATEMENTS OF
OPERATIONS AND CASH FLOWS FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1998 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                       1,492,421
<SECURITIES>                                 4,280,078
<RECEIVABLES>                                  188,903
<ALLOWANCES>                                     7,040
<INVENTORY>                                    496,417
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,560,178
<PP&E>                                         625,350
<DEPRECIATION>                               (413,796)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,957,744
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          420,370
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    16,941,317
<OTHER-SE>                                     290,400
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,957,744
<SALES>                                        313,878
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               313,878
<CGS>                                          265,118
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  703,243
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (78,614)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (575,869)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (575,869)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (575,869)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.11)
        

</TABLE>
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Judicial Conference of the United States

# AGENCY:

Judicial Conference of the United States; Advisory Committee on Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure.

# ACTION:

Notice of open meeting. 

# SUMMARY:

The Advisory Committee on Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure will hold a two-day meeting. The meeting will be open to public observation but not participation.

# DATES:

March 9-10, 2006.

# TIME:

8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.

# ADDRESSES:

University of North Carolina School of Law, Ridge Road, Van Hecke-Wettach Hall, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

John K. Rabiej, Chief, Rules Committee Support Office, Administrative Office of the United States Courts, Washington, DC 20544, telephone (202) 502-1820.

Dated: September 2, 2005.

John K. Rabiej, 

Chief, Rules Committee Support Office.

[FR Doc. 05-18067 Filed 9-12-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 2210-55-M
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

VINTON P. FROST, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

BECHETTI, Police Officer, Palo Alto Police 

Department; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 18-15856 

D.C. No. 3:16-cv-05883-RS 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Richard Seeborg, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 17, 2018**

Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

Vinton P. Frost appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing 

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations. We have 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a 

district court’s dismissal of a complaint as frivolous. Trimble v. City of Santa 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

DEC 19 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 18-15856 

Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 584 (9th Cir. 1995). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Frost’s first 

amended complaint as frivolous because it has no arguable basis in law or fact. 

See Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31-32 (1992) (discussing the meaning of 

“frivolousness”).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Frost’s motion for 

leave to file a second amended complaint because amendment would have been 

futile. See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th 

Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that dismissal without 

leave to amend is proper when amendment would be futile).

AFFIRMED.
#  

**Exhibit 32.2**

**OFFICER’SCERTIFICATION**

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, the Chief Financial Officer of Western Sizzlin Corporation (the “Company”),hereby certifies that the Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2006 andthe financial statements contained therein, fully comply with the requirementsof Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and theinformation contained in the Form 10-Q and the financial statementsthereto fairly present, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company as of June 30, 2006, and the periodthen ended.
| /s/ Robyn B. Mabe |   | August 14, 2006 |
|-------------------|--------|-----------------|

 

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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S FORM 10Q FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          30,067
<SECURITIES>                                    64,762
<RECEIVABLES>                                   40,775
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,877
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               149,238
<PP&E>                                          49,407
<DEPRECIATION>                                  20,834
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 183,568
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           59,880
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            18
<OTHER-SE>                                     123,648
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   183,568
<SALES>                                         24,958
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                42,172
<CGS>                                            1,907
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   10,364
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                32,095
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   308
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   5
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    495
<INCOME-TAX>                                       163
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                332
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       332
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.02


</TABLE>
# C_2023127EN.01005802.xml

| 11.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 127/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 127/58

---

Action brought on 24 February 2023 — Data Protection Commission v EDPB

(Case T-111/23)

(2023/C 127/72)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Data Protection Commission (represented by: B. Kennelly, SC, D. Fennelly and E. Synnott, Barristers-at-Law, D. Young, A. Bateman and R. Minch, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Data Protection Board

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul paragraphs 222 and 326(8) of Binding Decision 5/2022 of the European Data Protection Board (the ‘EDPB’) on the dispute submitted by the Irish SA pursuant to Article 65 GDPR on WhatsApp Ireland Limited; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul paragraphs 222 and 326(8) of Binding Decision 5/2022 of the European Data Protection Board (the ‘EDPB’) on the dispute submitted by the Irish SA pursuant to Article 65 GDPR on WhatsApp Ireland Limited;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the EDPB exceeded its competence under Article 65(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council (GDPR) (1) in purporting to instruct the Data Protection Commission to: (i) carry out a new investigation, and (ii) issue a new draft decision in accordance with Article 60(3) GDPR. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the EDPB exceeded its competence under Article 65(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council (GDPR) (1) in purporting to instruct the Data Protection Commission to: (i) carry out a new investigation, and (ii) issue a new draft decision in accordance with Article 60(3) GDPR.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the EDPB infringed Article 4(24) GDPR and Article 65(1)(a) GDPR by incorrectly interpreting those provisions as conferring a competence on the EDPB to instruct the DPC to: (i) carry out a new investigation, and (ii) issue a new draft decision in accordance with Article 60(3) GDPR. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the EDPB infringed Article 4(24) GDPR and Article 65(1)(a) GDPR by incorrectly interpreting those provisions as conferring a competence on the EDPB to instruct the DPC to: (i) carry out a new investigation, and (ii) issue a new draft decision in accordance with Article 60(3) GDPR.

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2016 L 119, p. 1).

---
STATE of North Carolina v. William David CAUFMAN.

No. 368P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 11, 2007.

Glenn Gerding, Southport, for Caufman.

Laura E. Crumpler, Assistant Attorney General, Susan Doyle, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 27th day of July 2007 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 11th day of October 2007."
STATE v. COX.

No. COA08-381.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed November 18, 2008.

Certification Date December 8, 2008.

Appeal from Cherokee (06CRS819, 06CRS50182, 07CRS1, 07CRS2, 07CRS3, 07CRS4).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
Chad J. CHAPMAN, Lauren B. Chapman v. Lila M. PAYNE and Washington Investor's Group LLC.

No. 419P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

February 5, 2009.

Lila M. Payne, Pro Se.

Alexandre N. MacClenahan, Greenville, SC, for Chapmans.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 9th day of September 2008 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Guilford County, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court of that County:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th day of February 2009."
#### Elena Rodriguez, Appellant, v Incorporated Village of Freeport et al., Respondents.

[801 NYS2d 352]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Bucaria, J.), dated March 3, 2004, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.

The manner in which a police officer operates his or her vehicle in responding to an emergency radio bulletin may not form the basis of civil liability to an injured third party unless the officer acted in reckless disregard for the safety of others *(see*Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104 [e]; *Saarinen v Kerr,*84 NY2d 494, 501 [1994]; *Molinari v City of New York,*267 AD2d 436 [1999]). The “reckless disregard” standard requires evidence that the actor intentionally committed an act of an unreasonable character in disregard of a known or obvious risk that was so great as to make it highly probable that harm would follow *(see Szczerbiak v Pilat,*90 NY2d 553, 557 [1997]; *Saarinen v Kerr, supra*at 501; *Campbell v City of Elmira,*84 NY2d 505, 510 [1994]).

In opposition to the defendant’s prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment, the plaintiff demonstrated the existence of a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant police officer was actually engaged in the “emergency operation” of her patrol car when she allegedly struck the plaintiff while backing up into a parking space *(O’Banner v County of Sullivan,*16 AD3d 950, 952 [2005]; *see Sweeney v Peterson,*1 AD3d 650, 651-652 [2003]). Crane, J.P., S. Miller, Goldstein and *Lifson,*JJ., concur.