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

(2004/C 33 E/211)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2075/03

by Elspeth Attwooll (ELDR) and Catherine Stihler (PSE) to the Commission

(24 June 2003)

Subject:   Lifting the current ban on feeding fishmeal to ruminants

The current ban on feeding fishmeal to ruminants was implemented in December 2000 as a precautionary measure as a consequence of the BSE situation. There is, however, no evidence of links between fishmeal intake and TSE or BSE.

Since December 2000 TSE regulations and revised animal by-product legislation have been implemented. A satisfactory analysis method to distinguish between meat and bone meal and fishmeal has also been developed and ring-tested. The fishmeal industry has implemented quality systems that ensure that pure, safe and traceable fishmeal enters the trade and industry risk assessments indicate that the worse scenario from a cross-contaminated fishmeal is one incident in 100 years.

In the light of these developments and with reference to the employment impact of the ban will the Commission now lift the ban on its expiry on 30 June 2003?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(5 August 2003)

The Parliament and the Council recently adopted a proposal for a Regulation (1) which prolongs the transitional measures to Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 of the Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 laying down rules for the prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (2), until 30 June 2005. The prolongation was necessary because of certain delays in establishing the bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) status of countries. The ban on feeding fishmeal to ruminants was one of the transitional measures prolonged.

In parallel, a Commission proposal introducing the current provisions of the feed ban into Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 without a fixed time schedule, thus ending the transitional nature of the feed ban is now in the process of adoption. It will apply from 1 September 2003.

Fishmeal itself does not present a risk for BSE. The reason for banning fishmeal in feed is the control of the feed. In particular, the presence of fishmeal may hamper the control of the presence of ruminant meat-and-bone meal in feed. Results of a recent ring trial indicate that 50 % of the laboratories failed to detect a contamination of 0,1 % mammalian proteins in feed containing 5 % of fishmeal with the official detection method. Research to improve the method is ongoing.

It therefore seems appropriate to reconsider the use of fishmeal in ruminant feed only when improved control measure are available in the light of new scientific developments and, where appropriate, in the light of the outcome of a risk assessment.

A Commission working document outlining the state of play of the feed ban will be forwarded to the Parliament and the Council in the coming weeks.

----

(1)  COM(2003) 103 final.

(2)OJ L 147, 31.5.2001.

----
**Exhibit 32.2**

** **

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of ERP Operating Limited Partnership (“ERPOP”)on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2004 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, DonnaBrandin, Chief Financial Officer of Equity Residential, general partner ofERPOP, certify, pursuant to 18.U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

 

(1)                                  The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

 

(2)                                  The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of ERPOP.

 

 
| /s/                      | Donna  Brandin |   |
|--------------------------|----------------|--------|
| Donna  Brandin           |
| Chief  Financial Officer |
| of  Equity Residential   |
| November  8, 2004        |

 

----
# C_2023173EN.01003601.xml

| 15.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 173/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 173/36

---

Action brought on 23 March 2023 — Poland v European Commission

(Case T-156/23)

(2023/C 173/47)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna and S. Żyrek, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the European Commission contained in the letter of 13 January 2023 (1) relating to the offsetting of the amounts receivable by way of the daily penalty payments imposed by the order of the Vice-President of the Court of Justice of 27 October 2021, Commission v Poland (C-204/21 R, EU:C:2021:878), with regard to the period from 30 August to 28 October 2022; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the European Commission contained in the letter of 13 January 2023 (1) relating to the offsetting of the amounts receivable by way of the daily penalty payments imposed by the order of the Vice-President of the Court of Justice of 27 October 2021, Commission v Poland (C-204/21 R, EU:C:2021:878), with regard to the period from 30 August to 28 October 2022;

| — | order the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on the following pleas in law: infringement of Articles 101 and 102 of Regulation 2018/1046, (2) read in conjunction with Article 98 thereof, as a result of the application of the procedure for recovering the amounts receivable by offsetting despite the fact that the order of 27 October 2021 imposed daily penalties during the period until the date of compliance with the order of 14 July 2021, Commission v Poland (C-204/21 R, EU:C:2021:593), and, on 15 July 2022, the provisions the suspension of whose application was required by the order of 14 July 2021 ceased to apply.

---

(1)  Letter from the European Commission dated 13 January 2023, Ref. ARES(2023)240070.

(2)  Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 July 2018 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union, amending Regulations (EU) No 1296/2013, (EU) No 1301/2013, (EU) No 1303/2013, (EU) No 1304/2013, (EU) No 1309/2013, (EU) No 1316/2013, (EU) No 223/2014, (EU) No 283/2014, and Decision No 541/2014/EU and repealing Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 (OJ 2018 L 193, p. 1).

---
ex_102.htm - Generated by SEC Publisher for SEC Filing






Verbal agreement 


Dated April 13, 2016


 


 


 


 


This Verbal Agreement (“Agreement”) is made between Piotr Sibov,
president and treasurer of Kaskad Corp. (“President”) and Kaskad Corp.
(“Company”). 


 


This Agreement is witness therefore that President has agreed to
loan the Company needed funds, in the amount not more then $60,000 US (“Loan”),
which is necessary for the Form S-1 registration process of the Company. 


 


In case if the Company needs more then the Loan, it has to be
certified by written agreement.


 


The Loan is unsecured and does not bear any interest. The Loan does
not have the repayment date and other provisions.


 


 


 


 


 


/s/ Piotr Sibov_________________________


President of Kaskad Corp.
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 176 (Tuesday, September 13, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 54094]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-18141]


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

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT


Sumission for OMB Review; Comment Request for Reclearance of a 
Revised Information Collection: SF 3102

AGENCY: Office of Personnel Management.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. 
L. 104-13, May 22, 1995), this notice announces that the Office of 
Personnel Management (OPM) has submitted to the Office of Management 
and Budget a request for reclearance of a revised information 
collection. SF 3102, Designation of Beneficiary (FERS), is used by an 
employee or an annuitant covered under the Federal Employees Retirement 
System to designate a beneficiary to receive any lump sum due in the 
event of his/her death.
    Approximately 2,893 SF 3102 forms are completed annually. Each form 
takes approximately 15 minutes to complete. The annual estimated burden 
is 723 hours.
    For copies of this proposal, contact Mary Beth Smith-Toomey on 
(202) 606-8358, FAX (202) 418-3251 or via e-mail to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#97faf5e3f8f8faf2eed7f8e7fab9f0f8e1"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7d101f0912121018043d120d10531a120b">[email protected]</span></a>. 
Please include a mailing address with your request.

DATES: Comments on this proposal should be received within 30 calendar 
days from the date of this publication.

ADDRESSES: Send or deliver comments to--

Pamela S. Israel, Chief, Operations Support Group, Retirement Services 
Programs, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street, NW., Room 
3349, Washington, DC 20415; and
Brenda Aguilar, OPM Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office 
Building, NW., Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503.

    For Information Regarding Administrative Coordination--Contact: 
Cyrus S. Benson, Team Leader, Publications Team, RIS Support Services/
Support Group, (202) 606-0623.

U.S. Office of Personnel Management.
Linda M. Springer,
Director.
[FR Doc. 05-18141 Filed 9-12-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6325-38-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
STATE v. Bernard George LAMP.

No. 222A14-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

July 13, 2015.

Anne M. Gomez, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Lamp, Bernard George (Jr.).

Kathleen M. Joyce, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Lamp, Bernard George (Jr.).

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

Sarah M. Kirkman, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

Sarah Kirkman, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 10th of July 2015 by Defendant to Consolidate Appeals:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 13th of July 2015."
# CE2004084EN.01002301.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/23

---

(2004/C 84 E/0025)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2444/03

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Council

(22 July 2003)

Subject:   US naval base in Guantanamo Bay

Subject:

With reference to Oral Question H-0036/02 (1) regarding the conditions under which prisoners taken during the Afghanistan war are being held by the USA in Guantanamo Bay, will the Council please list all citizens of Member States being held there? Will the Council please clarify whether the conditions under which those prisoners are being held, and the duration of their incarceration, comply with the terms of the Geneva Convention on prisoners of war? Will the Council please outline the basis on which the military tribunals proposed by the USA comply with internationally accepted standards of a fair trial? Will the Council please indicate what action it is taking to ensure that the US is in full compliance with Geneva Conventions and what response it is receiving from US authorities in this regard?

1

Reply

(8 March 2004)

(8 March 2004)

The Council is not in a position to provide details of the names, conditions of detention or duration of detention of Member States' citizens being held in Guantanamo Bay. As the Council has stated in its reply to Written Question E-1420/03, the protection of the rights and interests of Member States' nationals abroad pursuant to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations is a matter for the individual Member States concerned. It is accordingly for those Member States to take such measures as they consider necessary to ensure that their citizens' rights are respected. It is for the government of the USA to ensure that the detainees are held under conditions which do not violate international law and that any tribunal established by it complies with internationally accepted standards of a fair trial and with international law.

---

(1)  Written answer, 6.2.2002.

1

---
MAJESTIC CINEMA HOLDINGS, LLC v. HIGH POINT CINEMA, LLC, d/b/a Consolidated Theatres.

No. 338P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 9, 2008.

Susan J. Ryan, Winston-Salem, for Majestic.

John H. Capitano, Charlotte, for High Point Theatre.

Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ___, 662 S.E.2d 20.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 22nd day of July 2008 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:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th day of October 2008."
#### In the Matter of Chaun Valentine, Appellant, v Glenn S. Goord, as Commissioner of Correctional Services, et al., Respondents.

[801 NYS2d 99]

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Clemente, J.), entered June 8, 2004 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondent Superintendent of Lyon Mountain Correctional Facility finding petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner, an inmate, was charged in a misbehavior report with refusing a direct order after he failed to clean a cow pen as instructed by the head farmer during a work program. Following a tier II disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty of the charge and a penalty was imposed. Following an unsuccess*1196ful administrative appeal, petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding, which Supreme Court dismissed. Petitioner now appeals.*

The misbehavior report, together with the testimony of the head farmer and petitioner’s admission that he refused to enter the cow pen, provide substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt *(see Matter of Davis v Goord,*301 AD2d 1002, 1002 [2003], *lv dismissed*100 NY2d 534 [2003]; *Matter of Lunney v Goord,*290 AD2d 687, 688 [2002]). Petitioner’s contention that his fear of the animals justified his noncompliance created a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve and, even if true, renders him no less guilty of refusing a direct order *(see Matter of Tafari v McGinnis,*307 AD2d 502, 503 [2003]; *Matter of Leake v Goord,*289 AD2d 752, 752 [2001], *lv dismissed*98 NY2d 646 [2002]). Inasmuch as the Hearing Officer considered petitioner’s testimony in imposing a penalty that was less than the maximum allowable *(see*7 NYCRR 253.7 [a] [1]), we find no reason to disturb the determination.

Petitioner’s remaining contentions have been examined and, to the extent preserved, found to be without merit.

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Crew III, Peters and Carpinello, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

*

 Inasmuch as the petition raised a question of substantial evidence, Supreme Court should have transferred the proceeding to this Court in the first instance (see CPLR 7804 [g]). We will, nevertheless, treat the matter as properly transferred and consider it de novo (see *Matter of Encarnacion v Goord,*8 AD3d 843, 844 [2004], *lv denied*3 NY3d 607 [2004]).
STATE of North Carolina v. Donald WESTMORELAND.

No. 132P02-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 24, 2004.

Donald Westmoreland, Pro Se.

David L. Elliott, Assistant Attorney General, for State.

Prior report: 158 N.C.App. 315, 580 S.E.2d 432.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 15th day of March 2004 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals (Filed as Notice of Appeal Based on a Constitutional Question), 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 24th Day of June 2004."

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 15th day of March 2004 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals (Filed as Petition for Discretionary Review), 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 24th day of June 2004."
# Council Regulation (EU) No 779/2014 (repealed)Show full title

Council Regulation (EU) No 779/2014 of 17 July 2014 fixing the fishing opportunities for anchovy in the Bay of Biscay for            the 2014/15 fishing season (repealed)         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Council Regulation (EU) No 779/2014                     

# of 17 July 2014

# fixing the fishing opportunities for anchovy in the Bay of Biscay for the 2014/15 fishing season (repealed)

F1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                        

Textual Amendments

F1Repealed by Council Regulation (EU) 2015/104 of 19 January 2015 fixing for 2015 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and                                 groups of fish stocks, applicable in Union waters and, for Union vessels, in certain non-Union waters, amending Regulation                                 (EU) No 43/2014 and repealing Regulation (EU) No 779/2014.
**Exhibit      32**

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

**18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

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

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

| **SIGNATURE**                                                                                                          | **TITLE** | **DATE**                               |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------|----------------------------------------|
|                                                                                                                   |      |                                   |
|                              /s/ Wo Hing Li |      | Chief                Executive Officer | October                15, 2007 |
| Wo                Hing Li                                                                                              |      |
|                                                                                                                   |      |                                   |
|             /s/              Leada Tak Tai Li              |      | Chief                Financial Officer | October                15, 2007 |
| Leada                Tak Tai Li                                                                                        |      |

----
GOOD HOPE v. NCDHHS, etal.

No. 248P07-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 26, 2008.

William R. Shenton, Kenneth L. Burgess, Thomas R. West, Pamela A. Scott, Raleigh, for Harnett Health System, et al.

Joy H. Thomas, for Good Hope Health System.

C. Winston Gilchrist, Lillington, for Town of Lillington.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 24th day of March 2008 by Respondents (NCDHHS, Harnett Health, Harnett Co. &. Wake Med.) to Strike Appellants' Response:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference this the 26th day of August 2008."
POLAN – ARMY 20080024

**UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS**

Before

HOLDEN, HOFFMAN and SULLIVAN

Appellate Military Judges

**UNITED STATES, Appellee**

**v.**

**Private E1 EARL R. POLAN**

**United States Army, Appellant**

ARMY 20080024

Headquarters, Fort Drum

David L. Conn, Military Judge

Lieutenant Colonel Michael P. Ryan, Staff Judge Advocate

Lieutenant Colonel Michelle L. Ryan, Staff Judge Advocate (post-trial addendum)

For Appellant:  Major Teresa L. Raymond, JA; Captain Alison L. Gregoire, JA.

For Appellee:  Lieutenant Colonel Francis C. Kiley, JA.

21 August 2008

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

SUMMARY DISPOSITION

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

Per Curiam: 

     This case is before us for review under Article 66, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §866 [hereinafter UCMJ].  Although appellant’s case was submitted to us on the merits, we find error in the findings of the court-martial as described below.

     A military judge sitting as a special court-martial convicted appellant, contrary to his pleas, of unauthorized absence terminated by apprehension (AWOL) in violation of Article 86, UCMJ.  The termination date for appellant’s AWOL was charged as 13 September 2007 and the military judge found appellant guilty as charged.  The record demonstrates, however, appellant was arrested on 29 August 2007 and held by civilian authorities solely on a felony deserter warrant at the request of military authorities.  Accordingly, the correct termination date for appellant’s AWOL should be 29 August 2007.  *See Manual for Courts-Martial*, *United States*, (2005 ed.), Part IV, para 10.c.(10)(d) and (e); *see also**United States v. Lanphear*, 23 C.M.A. 338, 340, 49 C.M.R. 742, 744 (1975) (AWOL terminated when civilian authorities made appellant available for delivery to military authorities).

**DECISION**

We amend the finding of guilty in the Specification of Charge I to reflect the earlier termination date of 29 August 2007 and affirm the finding of guilty to Charge I and its Specification as amended.

     We have considered those matters personally raised by appellant pursuant to *United States v. Grostefon*, 12 M.J. 431 (C.M.A. 1982), and find them to be without merit.  Reassessing the sentence on the basis of the error noted and the entire record, and applying the principles of *United States v. Sales*, 22 M.J. 305 (C.M.A. 1988) and *United States v. Moffeit*, 63 M.J. 40, 43 (C.A.A.F. 2006), including Judge Baker’s concurring opinion, the sentence is affirmed.

FOR THE COURT:

MALCOLM H. SQUIRES, JR.

Clerk of Court

2