alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# CE2004070EN.01021502.xml

| 20.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 70/215 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 70/215

---

(2004/C 70 E/231)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3094/03

by Harald Ettl (PSE) to the Commission

(20 October 2003)

Subject:   Mobbing in the workplace

Subject:

The European Commission has frequently emphasised that it will draw up efficient policy measures to combat the phenomenon known as ‘mobbing in the workplace’ and publish a Green Paper which will include a detailed analysis, an action plan and a specific timetable.

What measures will the European Commission take in order to review the appropriateness and the scope of a specific Community instrument concerning mobbing in the workplace?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(25 November 2003)

(25 November 2003)

In its Communication entitled ‘Adapting to change in work and society: a new Community strategy on health and safety at work 2002-2006’ (1), the Commission announced that it would ‘examine the appropriateness and the scope of a Community instrument on psychological harassment and violence at work’.

1

The Commission is currently compiling and analysing the information available in this area. The analysis takes into account inter alia the legislative and/or regulatory initiatives adopted or planned in the Member States.

Accordingly Parliament's resolution on harassment in the workplace (2) and the opinion on violence at work adopted by the Advisory Committee on Safety Hygiene and Health Protection at Work (3) will also be taken into account.

2

3

On the basis of the above, the Commission plans, in the course of 2004, to consult the social partners on the possible direction of Community action in this area, in accordance with Article 138 of the EC Treaty.

---

(1)  COM(2002) 118 final.

1

(2)  A5-0283/2001, 19.9.2001.

2

(3)  COM(2003) 346 final.

3

---
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration 

          - [TA-W-57,016] 

Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(C) an application for administrative reconsideration was filed with the Director of the Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance for workers at Smurfit-Stone Container, Container Division, Statesville, North Carolina. The application contained no new substantial information which would bear importantly on the Department's determination. Therefore, dismissal of the application was issued.

TA-W-57,016; Smurfit-Stone Container, Container Division, Statesville, NC (September 7, 2005)

Signed at Washington, DC this 9th day of September 2005. 

Timothy Sullivan, 

Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. 

[FR Doc. 05-18541 Filed 9-16-05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510-30-P
# C_2008236EN.01001301.xml

| 13.9.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 236/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.9.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 236/13

---

Order of the President of the Third Chamber of the Court of 3 June 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

(Case C-365/06) (1)

1

(2008/C 236/21)

Language of the case: Italian

Language of the case: Italian

The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 281, 18.11.2006.

1

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

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-29-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-29-1996
<CASH>                                       1,673,663
<SECURITIES>                                 1,998,750
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    181,971
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,943,567
<PP&E>                                       5,698,124
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,160,706
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,629,703
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          946,999
<BONDS>                                        808,299
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        21,212
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,853,193
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,629,703
<SALES>                                      6,272,724
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,272,724
<CGS>                                        2,103,563
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                7,803,087
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             241,337
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (1,702,566)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (1,702,566)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.55)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.55)


</TABLE>
State v. Nashid Porter

83P16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 9, 2016

Nashid Porter, for Porter, Nashid.

Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, Ernie Lee, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 9th of March 2016 by Defendan to Dismiss-Grounds Applicable to All Criminal Pleadings:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of June 2016."
**EXHIBIT 31.1****CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**     I, Robert W. Zoller, Jr., certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Kitty Hawk, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who havea significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.     November 14, 2005 By: /s/ ROBERT W. ZOLLER, JR.         Robert W. Zoller, Jr.    Chief Executive Officer and President
# C_2010246EN.01004001.xml

| 11.9.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 246/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.9.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 246/40

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 8 July 2010 Magazzu v Commission

(Case F-126/06) (1)

1

(Staff cases - Officials - Appointment - Members of the temporary staff appointed as officials - Candidates’ names included on a reserve list of a competition published prior to the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations - Grading pursuant to the new less favourable rules - Acquired rights - Principle of non-discrimination - Articles 2, 5 and 12 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations)

2010/C 246/68

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Salvatore Magazzu (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: initially T. Bontinck and J. Feld, lawyers, and subsequently T. Bontinck and S. Woog, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and G. Berscheid, agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision of the Appointing Authority of 13 December 2005 by which the applicant, a temporary agent in Grade A*11 who was successful in open competition COM/A/18/04, was appointed as an official with classification in Grade A*6, step 2, in accordance with Annex XIII of the Staff Regulations.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Dismisses the application. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the application.

| 2. | Orders each party to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders each party to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 310, 16.12.2006, p. 32.

1

---
----

(2004/C 65 E/119)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1994/03

by Pietro-Paolo Mennea (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 June 2003)

Subject:   Television rights

There are sports organisations in the Member States which are legal entities different from sports federations, to which they are affiliated, and concern themselves with organising televised sports events.

In paragraph 27of the report on sport adopted on 7 September 2000 (A5-0208/2000) the European Parliament ‘calls for television rights to be granted in compliance with the antitrust law and to companies which take responsibility for the risks involved in preparing the sporting event; calls also for transparency in the granting of television rights’.

The selling of television rights for sports events is an economic activity and should therefore be subject to Community law on competition.

On a number of occasions the European Union has stressed that television rights should belong to legal entities who take responsibility for the business risk, with all that entails, including the risk of failure.

In view of all this, can the Commission say how it intends to ensure and ascertain that the sale and granting of television rights for the broadcasting of sports events, especially light athletics events, comply with legislation on competition, and also ascertain that television rights are owned by sports associations which have taken on the task of organising the event, rather than sports federations which have not done so, and that the rights are granted in accordance with criteria of transparency?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(10 July 2003)

The Commission agrees with the Honourable Member that the selling of television rights of sports events is an economic activity, which is subject to Community competition law.

The sale of TV rights of light athletic events is therefore also in principle a matter, which could fall within the scope of Community competition law. However, regarding the issue raised, namely the problem concerning the ownership of TV rights by the sports associations which have taken the risk of organising the event, it must be noted that, according to Article 295 of the EC Treaty, Community law does not prejudice in any way the system of property ownership.

Furthermore, as regards the exercise of the TV rights of light athletics events and compliance with Community competition rules, the Commission has at present no ongoing procedures, either upon complaint or own initiative investigations, concerning specifically this sports discipline.

----
Exhibit 32


                            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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Titan Technologies,
Inc. (the "Company") for the period ended January 31, 2006, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, the
undersigned, in the capacity and on the date indicated below, hereby 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:

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

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

Date March 17, 2006                      /s/ Ronald L. Wilder
                                         ----------------------------
                                         Ronald L. Wilder,  President
                                         (Chief  Executive  Officer)
                                         (Chief  Financial  Officer)
STATE of North Carolina v. Harley David HAMLIN.

No. 302P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Nov. 5, 2015.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 25th of August 2015 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 5th of November 2015."
----

(2004/C 33 E/271)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2394/03

by Bill Miller (PSE) to the Commission

(21 July 2003)

Subject:   Status of the Commission's White Paper ‘A New Impetus for European Youth’

What is the current status of the Commission's White Paper ‘A New Impetus for European Youth’ (1)?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(29 August 2003)

White Papers published by the Commission are documents containing proposals for Community action in a specific field. If a White Paper is viewed positively by the Council it can lead to the launching of Union action in the field concerned.

The White Paper ‘A new impetus for European youth’, adopted by the Commission on 21 November 2001, proposes in particular the implementation of cooperation in the youth field, covering four thematic priorities: ‘participation, information, voluntary activity and greater understanding and knowledge of youth’.

The Council took a positive view of the White Paper and adopted the Resolution of 27 June 2002 (2) regarding the framework of European cooperation in the youth field. This Resolution implements the proposals set out in the Commission's White Paper.

On participation and information, the Commission presented a synthesis report (3) and draft common objectives (4) on the basis of suggestions from the Member States. The Council discussed these Commission documents in May 2003.

As far as the priorities ‘a greater understanding of youth’ and ‘voluntary activities’ are concerned, the Commission will proceed accordingly. Currently these two priorities are tackled by the Member States.

----

(1)  COM/2001/0681 final.

(2)OJ C 168, 13.7.2002.

(3)  Commission staff working paper: Analysis of Member States' replies to the Commission questionnaires on youth participation and information (SEC(2003)465.

(4)  Communication from the Commission to the Council: Follow-up to the White Paper on a New Impetus for European Youth. Proposed common objectives for the participation and information of young people, in response to the Council Resolution of 27 June 2002 regarding the framework of European cooperation in the youth field, COM(2003)184 final.

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-1362

JERRY L. SHINABERRY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

SOCIAL SECURITY, Commissioner,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern

District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, Chief

District Judge. (1:07-cv-00028-IMK-JSK)

Submitted: August 18, 2008 Decided: September 12, 2008

Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jerry L. Shinaberry, Appellant Pro Se. Helen Campbell Altmeyer,

Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Jerry L. Shinaberry appeals the district court’s order

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and finding

that substantial evidence supports the Commissioner’s decision that

Shinaberry is not entitled to disability insurance benefits. We

have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. Shinaberry v. Commissioner, No. 1:07-cv-00028-IMK-JSK (N.D.

W. Va. Mar. 7, 2008). We dispense with 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
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 707 

To provide all low-income students with the same opportunity to receive 

a Pell Grant by suspending the tuition sensitivity provision in the Pell 

Grant program. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 28, 2007 

Mrs. BOXER (for herself and Mrs. FEINSTEIN) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To provide all low-income students with the same opportunity 

to receive a Pell Grant by suspending the tuition sensitivity provision in the Pell Grant program. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Pell Grant Equity Act 

5 of 2007’’. 

6 SEC. 2. TUITION SENSITIVITY. 

7 Section 401(b)(3) of the Higher Education Act of 

8 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070a(b)(3)) is amended by adding at 

9 the end the following new subparagraph: 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

2 

•S 707 IS

1 ‘‘(C) This paragraph shall not apply to the deter2 mination of a student’s basic grant for the 2007–2008 

3 academic year.’’. 

4 SEC. 3. GUARANTEE AGENCY COLLECTION RETENTION. 

5 Clause (ii) of section 428(c)(6)(A) of the Higher 

6 Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1078(c)(6)(A)(ii)) is 

7 amended to read as follows: 

8 ‘‘(ii) an amount equal to 24 percent of 

9 such payments for use in accordance with 

10 section 422B, except that— 

11 ‘‘(I) beginning October 1, 2003 

12 and ending September 30, 2007, this 

13 subparagraph shall be applied by sub14 stituting ‘23 percent’ for ‘24 percent’; 

15 and 

16 ‘‘(II) beginning October 1, 2007 

17 and ending September 30, 2008, this 

18 subparagraph shall be applied by sub19 stituting ‘22 percent’ for ‘24 per20 cent’.’’. 

Æ 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
WAKE CARES, INC., et al v. BOE, et al.

No. 230PA08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 19, 2008.

Robert N. Hunter, Jr., Greensboro, William Peaslee, Cary, for Wake Cares, Inc., et al.

Curtis H. Allen, III, for Wake County BOE.

Allison Schafer, Legal Counsel, Edwin M. Speas, Jr., John W. O'Hale, Raleigh, for NC School Bd. Assn.

Christopher Z. Campbell, K. Dean Shatley, II, Asheville, for NC Council of School Attys.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 19th day of December 2008 by Defendant to File Corrected Brief Correcting Certain Typographical Errors:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference this the 19th day of December 2008."