alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
STATE of North Carolina v. Deray Yantell JACKSON.

No. 219P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 9, 2008.

Bruce T. Cunningham, Jr., Southern Pines, Amanda S. Zimmer, for Jackson.

Diane Reeves, Special Deputy Attorney General, Edward W. Grannis, Jr., District Attorney, for State of NC.

Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ___, 659 S.E.2d 73.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by the Defendant on the 13th day of May 2008 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30, and the motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question filed by the State of NC, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the motion to dismiss the appeal is

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th day of October 2008."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 13th day of May 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 9th day of October 2008."
# CE2004088EN.01002401.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/24

---

(2004/C 88 E/0026)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1334/03

by Luigi Cocilovo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 April 2003)

Subject:   VAT on books

Subject:

The Commission may know that bookshops selling Italian books abroad have to pay double VAT: Italian VAT (4 %), included in the cover price, and VAT in the country where the book is sold (for example 3 % in Luxembourg, or 6 % in Belgium).

Is this situation compatible with Community law, which regulation or directive regulates this specific field and can it be invoked in order to avoid VAT being paid twice?

Does the Commission not consider that all obstacles of whatever kind that discourage people from reading should be eliminated?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2003)

(15 May 2003)

In the case of intra-Community supply of goods, VAT must, in principle, be calculated and paid in the country of destination. However, if the distance sales regime applies and provided the EUR 35 000 or EUR 100 000 yearly threshold is not exceeded, VAT is calculated and paid in the country of origin. In any event, VAT must be calculated and paid only once.

On the basis of the question presented by the Honourable Member, it is not clear whether the VAT calculated on the price of Italian books before they are exported to other Member States is actually paid by the taxable persons to the Italian State.

Should the taxable persons pay the VAT to the Italian State, the goods in question would be subject to double taxation contrary to the Sixth VAT directive (1). The Italian State would then have to modify its legislation in order to provide that the goods leave the territory of the country exempted from Italian VAT.

1

Should the taxable persons not pay the Italian VAT to the State, although it is part of the export price of the goods, there would be no double taxation. In this case, the issue would have to be analysed from a non-fiscal perspective.

In this respect, should the Honourable Member dispose of complementary or new information that might prove that there is an infringement of Community law, the Commission would be most grateful to receive it.

---

(1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, OJ L 145, 13.6.1977.

1

---
<PAGE>   1


                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.6



                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT



To the Directors of PetroFina S.A.:



     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
of PetroFina S.A. on Form F-3 (File No. 333-49315) of our report dated January
26, 1998, appearing in the Annual Report on Form 20-F of PetroFina S.A. for the
year ended December 31, 1999, relating to the balance sheet of PetroFina
Delaware, Incorporated and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1997 and the related
consolidated statements of earnings, stockholder's equity and cash flows for the
year then ended (which financial statements are not presented separately
therein).



/s/  KPMG LLP



KPMG LLP



Dallas, Texas


June 30, 2000


                                       E-7
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

In the Matter of 

SAUL GARY GRUBER

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 2830 Disciplinary Docket No. 3

No. 132 DB 2021

(Supreme Court of New Jersey, D-147 

September Term 2020)

Attorney Registration No. 55091

(Out of State)

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

AND NOW, this 17th day of December, 2021, having failed to respond to 

a Notice and Order directing him to provide reasons against the imposition of 

reciprocal discipline, Saul Gary Gruber is suspended from the practice of law 

for six months, consistent with the Order of the Supreme Court of New 

Jersey dated August 19, 2021. He shall comply with all of the provisions of 

Pa.R.D.E. 217.
* 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. 07-60879

Summary Calendar

MICHAEL GEBEREMEDHNE-KIFLE

Petitioner

v.

MICHAEL B MUKASEY, U S ATTORNEY GENERAL

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A99-523-057

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and STEWART and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Michael Geberemedhne-Kifle, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, has filed a

petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) order denying his

application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention

Against Torture (CAT). In rejecting Geberemedhne’s appeal, the BIA affirmed,

without opinion, the results of the immigration judge’s determination that

Geberemedhne lacked credibility.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 19, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-60879

2

On a petition for review of a BIA decision, this court reviews the factual

findings for substantial evidence. Gomez-Mejia v. INS, 56 F.3d 700, 702 (5th

Cir. 1995). “The applicant has the burden of showing that the evidence is so

compelling that no reasonable factfinder could reach a contrary conclusion.”

Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006). The decision of the BIA

to reject Geberemedhne’s testimony as incredible is based on a reasonable

interpretation of the record and therefore is supported by substantial evidence.

See Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76, 79 (5th Cir. 1994). As the record does not compel

a contrary conclusion, Geberemedhne’s asylum claim fails. See Mwembie v.

Gonzales, 443 F.3d 405, 410 (5th Cir. 2006). The adverse credibility

determination also defeats Geberemedhne’s withholding of removal and CAT

claims. See Mikhael v. INS, 115 F.3d 299, 306 (5th Cir. 1997) (observing that

the standard of proof for withholding of removal is more stringent than the

asylum standard and the alien must prove by a clear probability that he will, in

fact, be persecuted if returned to his home country); Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d

899, 907 (5th Cir. 2002) (observing that for CAT relief the alien must show that

it is more likely than not that he will suffer torture, as opposed to mere

persecution, if removed to his home country).

The petition for review is DENIED.
Joseph P. PRITCHARD and Iris K. Pritchard v. Elizabeth Jill SLADOJE.

No. 195P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 11, 2008.

Joseph P. Pritchard, Pro Se.

Iris K. Pritchard, Pro Se.

*318Ronnie Craig, Charleston, SC, for Sladoje.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 22nd day of April 2008 by Plaintiffs 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 June 2008."
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 amended Annual Report of Freedom Resources Enterprises,
Inc.  (the  "Company")  on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2001 as
filed  with  the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the
"Report"),  I,  Neil  Christiansen,  Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer  of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted
pursuant  to  section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of
my  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  result of operations of the
Company.




                         /s/Neil  Christiansen
                         -------------------------
                         Neil  Christiansen
                         Chief  Executive  Officer
                         Chief  Financial  Officer
                         April  24,  2002
STATE of North Carolina v. Michael Bruce THOMAS.

No. 218P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Aug. 20, 2015.

Craig M. Cooley, Cary, for Thomas, Michael Bruce.

Derrick Mertz, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Rick Shaffer, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 23rd of June 2015 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision *857of 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 20th of August 2015."
STATE v. GODWIN.

No. COA07-1280.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed October 7, 2008.

Certification Date October 27, 2008.

Appeal from Johnston (05CRS57876, 05CRS57917).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
# CE2004078EN.01007301.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/73 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/73

---

(2004/C 78 E/0072)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2059/03

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(20 June 2003)

Subject:   One-year delay by the Spanish government in extracting fuel oil from the wreck of the ‘Prestige’ off the Galician coast

Subject:

The Spanish government has just stated that the extraction operations (entrusted to the Repsol company) for the 3 5 000 tonnes of fuel oil that still have to be removed from the wreck of the ‘Prestige’ off the Galician coast will be delayed for a year, i.e. until spring 2004. This serious delay contradicts the Spanish government's earlier promises, and will increase the risks generated by the presence of the wreck at almost 4 000 metres underwater.

The Commission has declared that the presence of this vessel, still with one-half of its original load, is a matter of European concern, and has expressed its willingness to cooperate with the Spanish government to deal with the problem.

Is the Commission aware of the Spanish government's decision? Does it consider it justified? What action will it take to hold the Spanish government to its promise to remove the fuel oil remaining in the hold of the ‘Prestige’ during 2003? Has it contacted the Spanish government on the matter? What contacts has it established with the Galician regional government to resolve the problem?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 2003)

(31 July 2003)

The Honourable Member is invited to refer to his previous Written Questions E-3595/02 (1), E-1259/03 (2) and his oral question H-69/03 during question time at Parliament's March 2003 session (3).

1

2

3

The measures to be taken concerning the extraction of the fuel oil still on board the Prestige fall primarily under the competence of the Spanish authorities.

A delegation from the Spanish ministry for development and representatives from Repsol have recently presented to the Commission services and to the Director of the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) the details of the plan for the extraction of the fuel from the wreck of the Prestige.

The Commission understands that the same information was made available by the Spanish authorities to the Parliament's rapporteur on the Prestige accident.

A copy of the CD-rom presented by the Spanish authorities is sent directly to the Honourable Member.

---

(1)  OJ C 242 E, 9.10.2003, p. 63.

1

(2)  OJ C 280 E, 21.11.2003, p. 121.

2

(3)  Written reply, 11.3.2003.

3

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


<ARTICLE>                                            9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           5,908
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           9,315
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    151,403
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                             119
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                               117
<LOANS>                                        248,904
<ALLOWANCE>                                     (2,693)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 436,193
<DEPOSITS>                                     364,954
<SHORT-TERM>                                    10,710
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              2,994
<LONG-TERM>                                     10,582
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            36
<OTHER-SE>                                      46,917
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 436,193
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 10,360
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                4,511
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                14,871
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               8,068
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,967
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            5,904
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      605
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 (17)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  5,427
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    764
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         764
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       373
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .12
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.45
<LOANS-NON>                                      1,501
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   709
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                    838
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,669
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         2
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                2,693
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             2,693
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1998
<CASH>                                       4,829,180
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  107,384
<ALLOWANCES>                                    10,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,610,142
<PP&E>                                       2,841,718
<DEPRECIATION>                                 206,869
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,444,732
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,632,367
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    12,303,962
<OTHER-SE>                                 (5,723,726)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,444,732
<SALES>                                        850,724
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               850,724
<CGS>                                          793,957
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,027,636
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (29,519)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             580,679
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (5,522,029)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (5,522,029)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (5,522,029)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (3.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (3.05)
        

</TABLE>
Order filed October 15, 2014 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-13-00547-CR

____________

HORACE SIMPSON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Criminal Court at Law No 11

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1789057

ORDER

This court has determined, pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 

34.5(f) and 34.6(g)(2), that it must inspect the original of State's Exhibit 5, a VHS 

Station Video.
The clerk of the County Criminal Court at Law No 11 is directed to deliver 

to the Clerk of this court the original of State's Exhibit 5, on or before October 24, 

2014. The Clerk of this court is directed to receive, maintain, and keep safe this 

original exhibit; to deliver it to the justices of this court for their inspection; and, 

upon completion of inspection, to return the original of State's Exhibit 5, to the 

clerk of the County Criminal Court at Law No 11.

PER CURIAM
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998             DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          39,182                  10,079
<SECURITIES>                                    46,770                  44,522
<RECEIVABLES>                                  491,242                 345,958
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               577,194                 400,559
<PP&E>                                           9,900                   3,066
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (3,046)                   (548)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 676,314                 422,232
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          511,564                 269,650
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                            29                      29
<OTHER-SE>                                     146,684                 138,393
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   676,314                 422,232
<SALES>                                         67,577                  60,476
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                67,577                  60,476
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                53,766                  24,755
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 13,819                  35,721
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,528                  15,001
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              8,291                  20,720
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,291                  20,720
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.29                    0.91
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.29                    0.91
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 176 (Tuesday, September 13, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 54052]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-18185]


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

FEDERAL RETIREMENT THRIFT INVESTMENT BOARD


Sunshine Act Meeting

Time and Date: 9 a.m. (EDT), September 19, 2005.

Place: 4th Floor Conference Room, 1250 H Street, NW., Washington, DC.

Status: Telephonic--parts will be open to the public and parts closed 
to the public.

Matters to be Considered: 

Parts Open to the Public

    1. Approval of the minutes of the August 15, 2005, Board member 
meeting.
    2. Thrift Savings Plan activity report by the Executive Director.
    3. FY 2005 expenditures, proposed FY 2006 budget, and FY 2006 
estimate.

Parts Closed to the Public

    4. Procurement matters.

Contact Person for More Information: Thomas J. Trabucco, Director, 
Office of External Affairs, (202) 942-1640.

    Dated: September 8, 2005.
Elizabeth S. Woodruff,
Secretary to the Board, Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board.
[FR Doc. 05-18185 Filed 9-8-05; 4:40 pm]
BILLING CODE 6760-01-P