alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
STATE of North Carolina v. Kevin McKOY.

No. 306P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 26, 2008.

Kevin Lamar McKoy, Pro Se.

Joan M. Cunningham, Assistant Attorney General, Rex Gore, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 30th day of June 2008 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 26th day of August 2008."
EXHIBIT 14.(a).3


                                     CONSENT


     I hereby consent to the inclusion of the summary of my review of the
AlbaHealth operating unit under the caption "Significant Accounting Policies" in
the Annual Report on Form 20-F of Tefron Ltd, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission, and to the incorporation by reference of such summary in
the previously filed Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No 333-111932) and
Form F-3 (No. 333-128847) of Tefron Ltd.



Tel Aviv, Israel                                                  /s/ Yoram Eden
March 29, 2005
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 61 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 61

 To amend chapter 81 of title 5, United States Code, to authorize the 
  use of clinical social workers to conduct evaluations to determine 
              work-related emotional and mental illnesses.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 4, 2007

Mr. Reid (for Mr. Inouye) introduced the following bill; which was read 
     twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 
                          Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend chapter 81 of title 5, United States Code, to authorize the 
  use of clinical social workers to conduct evaluations to determine 
              work-related emotional and mental illnesses.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Clinical Social Workers' Recognition 
Act of 2007''.

SEC. 2. EXAMINATIONS BY CLINICAL SOCIAL WORKERS FOR FEDERAL WORKER 
              COMPENSATION CLAIMS.

    Section 8101 of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (2), by striking ``and osteopathic 
        practitioners'' and inserting ``osteopathic practitioners, and 
        clinical social workers''; and
            (2) in paragraph (3), by striking ``osteopathic 
        practitioners'' and inserting ``osteopathic practitioners, 
        clinical social workers,''.
                                 <all>
```
STATE of North Carolina v. Demetrius Miguel MELVIN.

No. 281P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 26, 2008.

Demetrius M. Melvin, Pro Se.

*232Jane Hautin, Special Deputy Attorney General, G. Dewey Hudson, District Attorney, for State.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 13th day of June 2008 by Defendant in this matter for writ of 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 26th day of August 2008."
# C_2023329EN.01000502.xml

| 18.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/5

---

Order of the Court (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) of 13 July 2023 — Hecht Pharma GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

(Case C-142/23 P) (1)

(Appeal - EU trade mark - Determination as to whether appeals should be allowed to proceed - Article 170b of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Request failing to demonstrate that an issue is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law - Refusal to allow the appeal to proceed)

(2023/C 329/07)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Hecht Pharma GmbH (represented by: C. Sachs and J. Sachs, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Gufic BioSciences Ltd.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is not allowed to proceed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is not allowed to proceed.

| 2. | Hecht Pharma GmbH shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Hecht Pharma GmbH shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  
  OJ C 179, 22.5.2023.

---
# CE2004070EN.01013501.xml

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

20.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 70/135

---

(2004/C 70 E/137)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2740/03

by Bernd Lange (PSE) to the Commission

(11 September 2003)

Subject:   Recovery of small amounts under EU aid programmes

Subject:

There have been many complaints recently that under EU aid programmes the calculations are so exact that, in some cases, even tiny amounts such as a few cents have to be recovered.

Quite apart from the huge amount of work it creates, this results in excessively high costs. In the case of comparable aid programmes at regional level, however, there is usually a certain discretionary margin, meaning that small amounts do not have to be recovered.

Is the Commission aware of this problem?

Is the Commission considering organising aid programmes so that in future a certain discretionary margin is allowed with regard to settling small amounts?

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(22 October 2003)

(22 October 2003)

Under the system of direct management, the Commission applies the rules laid down in the Financial Regulation (1) and the implementing rules (2) in matters relating to the recovery of its entitlements.

1

2

Article 79 of the implementing rules states that ‘to establish an amount receivable the authorising officer responsible shall ensure that (...) g) the principle of sound financial management is complied with’. This means specifically that the authorising officer will consider the foreseeable cost of recovery in relation to the amount to be recovered and assess the impact a waiver might have on the Community's image (Article 87(1)(a) of the implementing rules).

This provision answers the concerns expressed by the Honourable Member, and the Commission's accounting officer regularly brings it to the attention of the authorising officers responsible for establishing entitlements in the sectors assigned to them.

---

1

Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the

general budget of the European Communities, OJ L 248, 16.9.2002.

(2)  Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002, OJ L 357, 31.12.2002.

2

---
# C_2023035EN.01006901.xml

| 30.1.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 35/69 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.1.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 35/69

---

Action brought on 14 November 2022 — Administradora Fortaleza and Others v Commission

(Case T-716/22)

(2023/C 35/89)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Administradora Fortaleza Ltda (São Paulo, Brazil) (represented by: A. Ferreira Correia and R. da Palma Borges, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Articles 1 and 4 of the contested decision for a failure to state adequate reasons, or to the extent that they are applied to ‘sociedades gestoras de participações sociais’ (holding companies) or as a result of income being received from a source outside the outermost region; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Articles 1 and 4 of the contested decision for a failure to state adequate reasons, or to the extent that they are applied to ‘sociedades gestoras de participações sociais’ (holding companies) or as a result of income being received from a source outside the outermost region;

| — | order the defendant institution to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant institution to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action against Commission Decision (EU) 2022/1414 of 4 December 2020, on aid scheme SA.21259 (2018/C) (ex 2018/NN) implemented by Portugal for Zona Franca da Madeira (ZFM) — Regime III (notified under document C(2020) 8550) (OJ 2022 L 217, p. 49), the applicant relies on six pleas in law which, in essence, are identical or similar to those raised in Case T-702/22, TA v Commission.

---
Louisa B. WHITAKER v. John C. WHITAKER, Jr., Elizabeth N. Whitaker, II, and William A. Whitaker. Appealed by C. Thomas Ross, Pro Se.

No. 120P07-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 10, 2008.

C. Thomas Ross, Winston-Salem, for C. Thomas Ross.

Michael D. Phillips, Winston-Salem, William K. Davis, Alan M. Ruley, for John C. Whitaker, et al.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by the Appellant (Thomas Ross) on the 21st day of February 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 Defendants, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the motion to dismiss the appeal is

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 10th day of April 2008."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 21st day of February 2008 by Appellant (Thomas Ross) 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 10th day of April 2008."
RUSSELL D. HOGG

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 16

- 2714

________ _____________________/

Opinion filed October 13, 2016.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Alachua County

. Mark W. Moseley , Judge

.

Russell D. Hogg, pro se

, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Michael Schaub, Assistant Attorne y

General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS, C.J., ROWE and WINOKUR, JJ., CONCUR.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                       RECKSON OPERATING PARTNERSHIP, L.P.

         CERTIFICATION OF SCOTT H. RECHLER, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND
                  PRESIDENT OF RECKSON ASSOCIATES REALTY CORP.,
        THE SOLE GENERAL PARTNER OF RECKSON OPERATING PARTNERSHIP, L.P.,
  PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE

I, Scott H. Rechler, Chief Executive Officer and President of Reckson Associates
Realty Corp., the sole general partner of Reckson Operating Partnership, L.P.
(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 March 31, 2004 (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:  May 7, 2004


              RECKSON OPERATING PARTNERSHIP, L.P.
                   By: Reckson Associates Realty Corp., its sole general partner

                       By /s/ Scott H. Rechler
                         -------------------------------------------------------
                         Scott H. Rechler, Chief Executive Officer and President

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Reckson Operating Partnership, L.P. and will be furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
STATE v. HOLLARS.

No. COA08-706.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed March 17, 2009.

Certification Date April 6, 2009.

Appeal from Watuga (03CR52357, 03CR52358, 03CR52359).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
LILLIE v. BALL.

No. 421P10-3.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

July 13, 2015.

Robert Alan Lillie, for Lillie, Robert Alan.

Catherine F. Jordan, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Patrick Nadolski, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 9th of July 2015 by Petitioner to Appoint Counsel:

> "Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 13th of July 2015."
# C_2023045EN.01002801.xml

| 6.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/28

---

Action brought on 13 December 2022 — TUI Holding v EUIPO — inCruises International (INCRUISES)

(Case T-780/22)

(2023/C 45/36)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: TUI Holding Spain, SLU (Palma de Mallorca, Spain) (represented by: H. Fangmann, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: inCruises International LLC (San Juan, Puerto Rico, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark INCRUISES — Application for registration No 18 034 630

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 September 2022 in Case R 1081/2021-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 47(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 47(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 33(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 33(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
STATE v. Joshua David SMITH.

No. 234A08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 23, 2008.

Kirby H. Smith, New Bern, for Smith.

Rick Shaffer, District Attorney, for State.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 22nd day of May 2008 by State of NC for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference this the 23rd day of May 2008."
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Lonnie Cadell, Appellant.

[801 NYS2d 152]

Judgment Supreme Court, New York County (Eduardo Padro, J.), rendered May 18, 2004, unanimously affirmed.

*838Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see Anders v California,*386 US 738 [1967]; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833 [1976]). We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous points which could be raised on this appeal.

Pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law § 460.20, defendant may apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals by making application to the Chief Judge of that Court and by submitting such application to the Clerk of that Court or to a Justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of this Department on reasonable notice to the respondent within 30 days after service of a copy of this order, with notice of entry.

Denial of the application for permission to appeal by the judge or justice first applied to is final and no new application may thereafter be made to any other judge or justice. Concur— Buckley, P.J., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Saxe and Williams, JJ.
# Political and Security Committee Decision (CFSP) 2015/607 (repealed)Show full title

Political and Security Committee Decision (CFSP) 2015/607 of 15 April 2015 on the appointment of the EU Force Commander for            the European Union military operation to contribute to the deterrence, prevention and repression of acts of piracy and armed            robbery off the Somali coast (Atalanta) and repealing Decision (CFSP) 2015/102 (ATALANTA/3/2015) (repealed)         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Political and Security Committee Decision (CFSP) 2015/607                     

# of 15 April 2015

# on the appointment of the EU Force Commander for the European Union military operation to contribute to the deterrence, prevention                        and repression of acts of piracy and armed robbery off the Somali coast (Atalanta) and repealing Decision (CFSP) 2015/102                        (ATALANTA/3/2015) (repealed)                     

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

Textual Amendments

F1Repealed by Political and Security Committee Decision (CFSP) 2015/1750 of 29 September 2015 on the appointment of the EU Force Commander                                 for the European Union military operation to contribute to the deterrence, prevention and repression of acts of piracy and                                 armed robbery off the Somali coast (Atalanta) and repealing Decision (CFSP) 2015/607 (ATALANTA/5/2015).
### MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04

- 11

- 00 457

- CR EX PARTE James PAYTON Original Proceeding 1
PER CURIAM Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice Rebecca Simmons, Justice Delivered and Filed: July 13, 2011
PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION On July 1, 2011, relator James Payton filed an original petition for writ of habeas corpus in this court. However, as an intermediate court of appeals this court is not authorized to grant the relief requested. Pursuant to section 22.221(d) of the Texas Government Code, in civil
matters, a court o f appeals “may issue a writ of habeas corpus when it appears that the restraint of liberty is by virtue of an order, process, or commitment issued by a court or judge because of the violation of an order, judgment, or decree previously made, rendered, or e ntered by the court or judge in a civil case.” T EX
. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN
. § 22.221(d) (West 2004). However, in criminal matters, a court of appeals has no original habeas corpus jurisdiction. Watson v. State , 96 S.W.3d 497, 500 (Tex. App.

— Amarillo 2002, pet. ref’d); Dodson v. State , 988 S.W.2d 833,

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2011

- CR

- 4235 , styled State of Texas v. James Payton , pending in the 187 th Judicial District Court , Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Raymond Angelini presiding

.04

- 1 1

- 00 457

- CR

- 2

- 835 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 1999, no pet.). In criminal matters, the courts authorized to issue writs of habeas corpus are the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, the district courts, and the county courts. See T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art. 11.05 (West 2005). Therefore, we dismiss this petition for writ of habeas for lack of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM
DO NOT PUBLISH
# CE2004088EN.01059201.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/592 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/592

---

(2004/C 88 E/0605)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0207/03

by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 January 2003)

Subject:   Maltese referendum

Subject:

Would the Commission say how much EU money from information or from other funds is going to Malta before the referendum? How much money has the Commission allocated for referendums in the applicant countries in general?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(14 February 2003)

(14 February 2003)

The total amount of pre-accession funds allocated by the Community to Malta from 2000 to 2004 is EUR 38 million, in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 555/2000 of 13 March 2000 on the implementation of operations in the framework of the pre-accession strategy for the Republic of Cyprus and the Republic of Malta (1). However EUR 2 million, which were earmarked for 2004, will not be committed because of Malta's foreseen accession in 2004. Therefore, Malta will effectively have received EUR 36 million of pre-accession aid. From this amount, EUR 0,7 million has been allocated for activities related to information.

1

With regard to referenda in other Candidate Countries, Article 49 of the Treaty on the European Union states that the Accession Treaty ‘shall be submitted for ratification to all the contracting States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements’. The responsibility for organising a referendum is that of the relevant authorities in each country concerned. The Commission does not fund, nor is it otherwise involved with, the organisation of the referenda or the campaigns associated with them in any Candidate Country. The Commission operates a Communication Strategy for enlargement in all Member States and Candidate Countries. The strategy is largely decentralised. In the Central European Candidates, it is financed by the PHARE budget and implemented by the Delegation of the Commission. Details of the precise funding for the overall and individual programmes, and the actual implementation of the Communication Strategy can be found in the regular updates that are available on the web site of the Commission at http://europa.eu.int/comm/enlargement/communication/index.htm.

---

(1)  OJ L 68, 16.3.2000.

1

---
**EXHIBIT      32 **

**CERTIFICATIONS**

| Dated:                November 14, 2008 | By:    | /s/                Leonard Armato                 |
|-----------------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------|
|                                    |   | Leonard                Armato                     |
|                                    |   | Chief                Executive Officer            |
|                                    |   | (Principal                Executive Officer)      |
|                                    |   |                                              |
|                                    |   |                                              |
|                                    | By:    | /s/Jason                Hodell                    |
|                                    |   | Jason                Hodell                       |
|                                    |   | Chief                Financial Officer (Principal |
|                                    |   | Financial                Officer)                 |

----
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.3
 
                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT
 
To the Board of Directors of Fina Raffinaderij Antwerpen NV
 
We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Registration Statement of
PetroFina SA on Form S-8 (File No. 333-61145) of our report dated March 22,
1999, appearing in the Annual Report on Form F-20 of PetroFina SA for the year
ended December 31, 1998, relating to the balance sheets of Fina Raffinaderij
Antwerpen NV as of December 31, 1998, 1997 and 1996 and the related statements
of income for each of the years in the three year period ended December 31,
1998.
 
March 22, 1999
Antwerp, Belguim
 
Klynveld Peat Marwick Goerdeler Reviseurs d'Enterprises
Represented by
 
/s/ L. RUYSEN
L. Ruysen