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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-2738

D. JOHNSON WILLIS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

TOWN OF TRENTON, NORTH CAROLINA; JOFFREE T.

LEGGETT, Individually and as Town Mayor;

CHARLES C. JONES, Individually and as Member

of Town Council; EDWARD EUBANKS, Individually

and as Member of Town Council; WILLIARD ODELL

LEWIS, Individually and as Member of Town

Council; ANN BROCK, Individually and as former

Member of Town Council; EDWARD PARKER, Individually and as former Member of Town Council;

CLIFTON MILLS, SR., Individually as former

Member of Town Council; BOB D. HENDERSON,

Individually and as former Member of Town

Council; JAMES R. FRANCK, Individually and as

former Town Mayor; SHERI M. DAVENPORT, Individually and as former Town Counsel; CAROL M.

HOOD, Personal Representative of the Estate of

James R. Hood; GEORGE W. DAVENPORT, Individually and as former Town Mayor; JAMES BLOODWORTH, Individually and as Town Employee; C.

GLENN SPIVEY, Individually and as Town Clerk

and their successors and agents,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Malcolm J. Howard,

District Judge. (CA-94-166-4-H)

Submitted: April 23, 1996 Decided: May 21, 1996
2
3

Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.

D. Johnson Willis, Appellant Pro Se. Cheryl A. Marteney, WARD &

SMITH, P.A., New Bern, North Carolina; Dal Floyd Wooten, III,

Kinston, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
4

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying

relief on his civil rights complaint alleging an equal protection

violation in his community's provision of trash removal services.

We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion adopting the magistrate judge's recommendation and find no reversible

error. Willis v. Town of Trenton, No. CA-94-166-4-H (E.D.N.C. Sept.

12, 1995). We modify the order, however, to reflect dismissal of

the action without prejudice so that Appellant may have the opportunity to particularize his complaint and specify the proper defendants. 28 U.S.C. § 2106 (1988); see Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147,

1152-53 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 970 (1978).

We deny the motion for 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.

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED
#### In the Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a. Committee on Professional Standards, Petitioner; Frederick A. DeFuria, Respondent.

[801 NYS2d 162]

Per Curiam.

Respondent, who was admitted to practice by this Court in 1990, was suspended by this Court’s order dated June 7, 1999 for failure to comply with the attorney registration requirements of Judiciary Law § 468-a (262 AD2d 702 [1999]).

Respondent now requests reinstatement on the ground that he has complied with the attorney registration requirements of Judiciary Law § 468-a and the Rules of the Chief Administrator of the Courts *(see*22 NYCRR part 118). Petitioner does not object to respondent’s application.

Respondent’s application is granted and he is ordered reinstated, effective immediately.

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Crew III, Peters and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that respondent’s application is granted; and it is further ordered that respondent is reinstated as an attorney and counselor-at-law in the State of New York, effective immediately.
#### John Wolff et al., Respondents, v New York City Transit Authority et al., Appellants, et al., Defendant.

[801 NYS2d 345]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants New York City Transit Authority and CAB Associates appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Durante, J), dated September 26, 2003, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

“The proponent of a summary judgment motion must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to eliminate any material issues of fact” *(Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr.,*64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]). Here, the plaintiff John Wolff allegedly was *957injured when he was struck by an unsecured door while standing in a temporary wooden structure constructed by the defendant CAB Associates (hereinafter CAB) for a construction project at a subway station of the defendant New York City Transit Authority (hereinafter the NYCTA). CAB and the NYCTA (hereinafter collectively the defendants) failed to make a prima facie showing that they neither created the allegedly dangerous condition nor had actual or constructive notice of it *(see Habura v Austin Drugs of E. Meadow,*6 AD3d 660, 661 [2004]; *Bluman v Freeport Union Free School Dist.,*5 AD3d 341, 342 [2004]; *Goldin v Riker,*273 AD2d 197 [2000]). Although the defendants’ submission identified gaps in the plaintiffs’ proof, that was not sufficient to satisfy the defendants’ burden in moving for summary judgment *(see Doe v Orange-Ulster Bd. of Coop. Educ. Servs.,*4 AD3d 387 [2004]; *Larkin Trucking Co. v Lisbon Tire Mart,*185 AD2d 614, 615 [1992]).

In light of the failure of the defendants’ proof on the motion, it was unnecessary to address the plaintiffs’ submission *(see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., supra).*However, we note that the plaintiffs’ contention that a triable issue of fact exists as to whether the defendant NYCTA assumed a special duty to protect the injured plaintiff was not considered because it was improperly raised for the first time on appeal *(see DeLeon v New York City Tr. Auth.,*5 AD3d 531, 532 [2004]; *Engel v Jacobs,*297 AD2d 657, 658 [2002]). Adams, J.P., Krausman, Spolzino and Fisher, JJ., concur.
COVINGTON v. TRIAD FINANCIAL CORP.

No. COA07-1172.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed April 1, 2008.

Certification Date April 21, 2008.

Appeal from the Lincoln (06CVS1484).

Cases Reported Without Published Opinion. Dismissed.
```

                                                                Exhibit 13.(a).1

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

In connection with the Annual Report of Tefron Ltd. (the "Company") on Form 20-F
for the period ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned hereby
certify that to the best of our knowledge:

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

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

Date:  June 30, 2009

                                          By: /s/ Adi Livneh
                                          ------------------
                                          Adi Livneh
                                          Chief Executive Officer

Date:  June 30, 2009

                                          By: /s/ Eran Rotem
                                          ------------------
                                          Eran Rotem
                                          Chief Financial Officer
```
----

(2004/C 33 E/109)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1366/03

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(10 April 2003)

Subject:   EU citizens' awareness in regard to more economic use of energy

Modern societies are to a great extent based on large-scale consumption of energy. However, all uses of energy create environmental problems. If energy consumption is to be reduced in the long term, wide-ranging measures must be taken by consumers and producers alike. However, change requires knowledge and understanding. One of the conclusions drawn from a recent survey of 16 000 EU citizens carried out by the Directorate-General for Research is that a large section of those citizens has limited understanding of how energy is consumed in society or of how they themselves can help to reduce energy use in their own households.

In the Commission's view, what measures should be taken to heighten the awareness of EU citizens to achieve more economic use of energy?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(16 May 2003)

In order to achieve the necessary objectives as described in the Green Paper on energy supply, on the demand side the Commission implements several instruments like legislation, promotion and education to help raise awareness of European citizens in energy use. The Commission is of the opinion that a mix of these approaches is important.

Nevertheless the Commission notes with pleasure that according to the recent Eurobarometer survey on energy there is a high awareness among European citizens that energy is very important in our society and that its use affects the environment. A positive attitude towards renewable energy and energy savings is clearly there.

Measures that were and are being taken to heighten the energy awareness of European citizens include the following initiatives:

----
HARLEYSVILLE INS. v. BUZZ OFF INSECT.

No. 272A08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 21, 2008.

David L. Brown, John I. Malone, Jr., Martha P. Brown, Greensboro, for Harleysville Mutual Ins. Co.

Mack Sperling, John S. Buford, Greensboro, Cecilia O. Miller, Diana S. Casey, San Diego, CA, for International Garment Tech.

Gary K. Sue, Greensboro, Michael A. Hamilton, for Erie Insurance.

David Neal Allen, Charlotte, for NC Assoc. of Defense Attys.

Joseph W. Eason, Stephen D. Martin, Raleigh, for Property Casualty Insurers.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 19th day of November 2008 by Amicus (NC Association of Defense Attorneys) to Withdraw Request for filing an Amicus Curiae Brief:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference this the 21st day of November 2008."
CARROLL v. RANDOLPH COUNTY.

No. COA07-1446.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed August 19, 2008.

Certification Date September 8, 2008.

Appeal from Randolph (06CVS2147).

Case reported without published opinion. Reversed and remanded.
# CE2004088EN.01029901.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/299 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/299

---

(2004/C 88 E/0306)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3626/02

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(10 December 2002)

Subject:   Implementation by Greece of Directive 1999/70/EC

Subject:

Under Council Directive 1999/70/EC (1) of 28 June 1999 on fixed-term work, the Member States are required to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by 10 July 2002. Three months after the deadline for Greece to comply with Directive 1999/70/EC, the Greek Government published a draft Presidential Decree which unlawfully exempts from the scope of the directive individuals employed on contract by the public administration, legal persons governed by public law, local government and many other sectors of economic activity.

1

In its opinion on the Presidential Decree, with which employees and employers fully agreed, the Economic and Social Committee of Greece rejected the above exemptions introduced by the Presidential Decree as ‘contrary to the letter of the Directive’. Given that Directive 1999/70/EC affects many thousands of workers in Greece who work under insecure and uncertain conditions, will the Commission say why it does not initiate proceedings against the Member State in question in the Court of Justice for its failure to comply with the deadlines for implementing Directive 1999/70/EC and for the Greek Government's unacceptable restriction of the scope of that Directive?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(14 January 2003)

(14 January 2003)

As Greece has not communicated to the Commission any information regarding the transposition of Directive 1999/70/EC concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, the Commission will be obliged to examine the possibility of launching infringement proceedings against Greece on these grounds.

---

(1)  OJ L 175, 10.7.1999, p. 43.

1

---
Exhibit
32.1








CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,





AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO





SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the annual report on
Form 10-K of Tier Technologies, Inc., (the “Company”), for the period ended
September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, Ronald L. Rossetti, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, that, to his knowledge:




1.
            This
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section
      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
  amended.




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







Dated:  November
      10, 2009
            /s/
      Ronald L. RossettiRonald
      L. RossettiChief
      Executive Officer
# The Common Agricultural Policy Schemes (Cross-Compliance) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2014 (revoked)

        - Previous
        - Next

S

Scottish Statutory Instruments

# 2014 No. 6

Agriculture

# The Common Agricultural Policy Schemes (Cross-Compliance) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2014 (revoked)F1

Made

9th January 2014

Laid before the Scottish Parliament

13th January 2014

Coming into force

21st February 2014

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

F1Regulations revoked (1.1.2015) by The Common Agricultural Policy (Cross-Compliance) (Scotland) Regulations 2014 (S.S.I. 2014/325), **reg. 10(1)**
HARRELL v. Warden MENIFEE.

No. 180P07-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 23, 2007.

Robert Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of NC.

Prior report: ___ N.C. ___, 645 S.E.2d 381.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 18th day of June 2007 by Plaintiff for Rehearing En Banc:

*604"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference this the 23rd day of August 2007."
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
ELECTROSCOPE, INC. BALANCE SHEET AS OF JUNE 30, 1997 AND STATEMENTS OF
OPERATION AND CASH FLOWS FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1997 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                       6,871,615
<SECURITIES>                                 1,640,432
<RECEIVABLES>                                  241,072
<ALLOWANCES>                                    25,000
<INVENTORY>                                    606,700
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             9,420,356
<PP&E>                                         570,566
<DEPRECIATION>                               (259,804)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,884,490
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          672,712
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    16,880,567
<OTHER-SE>                                     290,400
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,884,490
<SALES>                                        311,564
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               311,564
<CGS>                                          274,962
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,179,994
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (97,516)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,045,877)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,045,877)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,045,877)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.19)
        

</TABLE>
# Commission Regulation (EU) No 815/2014Show full title

Commission Regulation (EU) No 815/2014 of 23 July 2014 establishing a prohibition of fishing for anglerfish in VIIIc, IX and            X; Union waters of CECAF 34.1.1 by vessels flying the flag of France         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Regulation (EU) No 815/2014                     

# of 23 July 2014

# establishing a prohibition of fishing for anglerfish in VIIIc, IX and X; Union waters of CECAF 34.1.1 by vessels flying the                        flag of France                     

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring                           compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy(1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Council Regulation (EU) No 43/2014(2), lays down quotas for 2014.

(2)According to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation                              by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for                              2014.

(3)It is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

## Article 1U.K.Quota exhaustion

The fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein                     for 2014 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.                  

## Article 2U.K.Prohibitions

Fishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in                     the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited                     to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.                  

## Article 3U.K.Entry into force

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*.                  

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 23 July 2014.

*For the Commission*                            

*On behalf of the President,*                            

Lowri Evans                            

*Director-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries*                            

## ANNEXU.K.

1

OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.                           

2

Council Regulation (EU) No 43/2014 of 20 January 2014 fixing for 2014 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and                              groups of fish stocks, applicable in Union waters and, to Union vessels, in certain non-Union waters (OJ L 24, 28.1.2014, p. 1).
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v James J. Bonaparte, Appellant.

[800 NYS2d 865]

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Saratoga County (Scarano, Jr., J), rendered May 16, 2003, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree.

In satisfaction of a superior court information, defendant pleaded guilty to criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree and waived his right to appeal. Defendant was sentenced in accordance with the plea agreement to a prison term of 1 to 3 years. On appeal, defense counsel seeks to be relieved of his assignment as counsel for defendant on the ground that there are no nonfrivolous issues which can be raised on appeal. Upon our review of the record and defense counsel’s brief, we agree. The judgment is, accordingly, affirmed and defense counsel’s application for leave to withdraw is granted *(see People v Cruwys,*113 AD2d 979 [1985], *lv denied*67 NY2d 650 [1986]; *see generally People v Stokes,*95 NY2d 633 [2001]).

Cardona, P.J., Crew III, Carpinello, Mugglin and Rose, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, and application to be relieved of assignment granted.
# CE2004088EN.01007501.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/75 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/75

---

(2004/C 88 E/0082)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2244/03

by Elspeth Attwooll (ELDR) to the Commission

(7 July 2003)

Subject:   Wild birds directive in Malta

Subject:

Beyond the transition agreement for the trapping of finches, is the Commission satisfied that Malta will be able to comply with the Wild Birds Directive 79/409/EEC (1) from the date of its accession to the EU? If the Commission is not satisfied that Malta will be able to comply, what action does it intend to take?

1

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(4 August 2003)

(4 August 2003)

The Commission will continue to monitor legislative progress made by Malta and other Acceding Countries till 1 May 2004. This analysis will be reflected in the comprehensive monitoring report that will be published in November 2003.

When Malta becomes a member of the Union, the Commission will verify that Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds has been correctly transposed as it does for all Member States. Should Malta not comply with the Directive then the Commission will consider the action to be taken on the basis of the EC Treaty provisions.

---

(1)  OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.

1

---
STATE v. SYKES.

No. COA07-537.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed March 4, 2008.

Certification Date March 24, 2008.

Appeal from Bladen (05CRS52870).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
EXHIBIT 99.1


                         RECKSON ASSOCIATES REALTY CORP.
                                  EXHIBIT 99.1
        CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18
                           OF THE UNITED STATES CODE



I, Donald Rechler, CO-CEO of Reckson Associates Realty Corp. (the "Company"),
certify pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, that:

         1)     The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the
                quarterly period ended June 30, 2002 (the "Report") fully
                complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of
                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d));
                and

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

Dated:  August 12, 2002


                         By           /s/ Donald Rechler
                           -----------------------------------------------------
                                      Donald Rechler, Co-Chief Executive Officer