alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Political and Security Committee Decision (CFSP) 2015/1128Show full title

Political and Security Committee Decision (CFSP) 2015/1128 of 7 July 2015 on the appointment of the Head of Mission of the            European Union Border Assistance Mission for the Rafah Crossing Point (EU BAM Rafah) (EU BAM Rafah/1/2015)         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Political and Security Committee Decision (CFSP) 2015/1128                     

# of 7 July 2015

# on the appointment of the Head of Mission of the European Union Border Assistance Mission for the Rafah Crossing Point (EU                        BAM Rafah) (EU BAM Rafah/1/2015)                     

THE POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular the third paragraph of Article 38 thereof,

Having regard to Council Joint Action 2005/889/CFSP of 12 December 2005 on establishing a European Union Border Assistance                           Mission for the Rafah Crossing Point, EU BAM Rafah(1), and in particular Article 10(1) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Pursuant to Article 10(1) of Joint Action 2005/889/CFSP, the Political and Security Committee is authorised, in accordance                              with Article 38 of the Treaty, to take the relevant decisions for the purpose of exercising political control and strategic                              direction of the European Union Border Assistance Mission for the Rafah Crossing Point (EU BAM Rafah), including the decision                              to appoint a Head of Mission.

(2)On 29 May 2015, the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy proposed the appointment of Ms                              Natalina CEA as Head of Mission of EU BAM Rafah from 1 July 2015 to 30 June 2016.

(3)Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/1065(2) extended the duration of EU BAM Rafah until 30 June 2016,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

# Article 1U.K.

Ms Natalina CEA is hereby appointed as Head of Mission of EU BAM Rafah for the period from 1 July 2015 to 30 June 2016.

# Article 2U.K.

This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.

It shall apply from 1 July 2015.

Done at Brussels, 7 July 2015.

*For the Political and Security Committee*                            

*The Chairperson*                            

W. Stevens                            

1

OJ L 327, 14.12.2005, p. 28.                           

2

Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/1065 of 2 July 2015 amending Joint Action 2005/889/CFSP on establishing a European Union Border                              Assistance Mission for the Rafah Crossing Point (EU BAM Rafah) (OJ L 174, 3.7.2015, p. 23).
----

(2004/C 33 E/150)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1683/03

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(15 May 2003)

Subject:   Clarification of Council Regulation No 2340/2002

Council Regulation No 2340/2002 (1) is not in line with the Commission proposal in the part concerning compliance with the provision of Council Regulation No 2027/95 (2) of 15 June 1995, in the wording given it by Regulation No 149/1999 (3) of 19 January 1999 and as referred to in the Commission's reply to Written Question E-1849/02 (4), regarding the limitation of the fishing effort of the UK and Spanish fleets for the species in question in the area under Portuguese jurisdiction or sovereignty in division ICES-X or CECAF 3.4.

Given that, as the Commission stated in its reply to Written Question P-0026/03 (5), the above-mentioned limitation of the fishing effort is currently fully in force, the omission has no legal consequences.

In this connection, does the Commission not consider it necessary to clarify the matter so as to ensure compliance with Community law and prevent irreparable damage being caused to the biological balance of the fish stocks in the areas concerned, in view of the full documentation that has been produced by the scientific community in publications of which the Commission is aware, as is clearly recognised in its proposal COM(2002) 739?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(12 June 2003)

On fishing effort in division X, the Honourable Member is asked to refer to the Commission's reply to his Written Question E-1849/02 (6). The Commission reiterates its position set out in that reply on application of Council Regulation (EC) No 2340/2002 of 16 December 2002 fixing for 2003 and 2004 the fishing opportunities for deep-sea fish stocks.

The new terms of access to the division in question will form part of the new Western Waters' arrangements now before the Council (7).

----

(1)OJ L 356, 31.12.2002, p. 1.

(2)OJ L 199, 24.8.1995, p. 1.

(3)OJ L 18, 23.1.1999, p. 3.

(4)OJ C 28 E, 6.2.2003, p. 148.

(5)OJ C 222 E, 18.9.2003, p. 138.

(6)OJ C 28 E, 6.2.2003.

(7)  COM(2002) 739 final.

----
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 684 

To clarify the authority of the Secretary of the Interior with respect to 

the management of the elk population located in the Theodore Roosevelt 

National Park. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 26, 2007 

Mr. DORGAN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To clarify the authority of the Secretary of the Interior 

with respect to the management of the elk population 

located in the Theodore Roosevelt National Park. 

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 ‘‘Elk Population Man5 agement Act of 2007’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS. 

7 In this Act: 

8 (1) AUTHORIZED INDIVIDUAL.—The term ‘‘au9 thorized individual’’ means an individual, as a volunVerDate Aug 31 2005 20:49 Feb 28, 2007 Jkt 059200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S684.IS S684

jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
2 

•S 684 IS

1 teer or under contract with the Secretary, who pos2 sesses— 

3 (A) a valid resident big-game hunting li4 cense issued by the appropriate agency of the 

5 State; and 

6 (B) any other qualification that the Sec7 retary, in consultation with the appropriate 

8 agency of the State, may require. 

9 (2) ELK MANAGEMENT PLAN.—The term ‘‘elk 

10 management plan’’ means the elk management plan 

11 for the Theodore Roosevelt National Park that is— 

12 (A) described in a final notice of intent 

13 published by the Director of the National Park 

14 Service (69 Fed. Reg. 53087) (August 31, 

15 2004); and 

16 (B) to be included in an environmental im17 pact statement required under the National En18 vironmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 

19 4321 et seq.). 

20 (3) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means 

21 the Secretary of the Interior. 

22 (4) STATE.—The term ‘‘State’’ means the State 

23 of North Dakota. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
3 

•S 684 IS

1 SEC. 3. MANAGEMENT OF ELK POPULATION. 

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—Nothing in section 4 of the Act 

3 of March 2, 1929 (16 U.S.C. 198c), or any other provision 

4 of law, prohibits the Secretary from permitting an author5 ized individual to use lethal means to reduce the popu6 lation of elk located within the Theodore Roosevelt Na7 tional Park, in accordance with the elk management plan. 

8 (b) CONSULTATION.—The Secretary shall consult 

9 with the appropriate agency of the State to determine the 

10 level of participation of the appropriate agency in carrying 

11 out this Act. 

12 (c) LIMITATION OF AUTHORITY.—The Secretary 

13 shall not permit an individual to take any elk located with14 in the Theodore Roosevelt National Park for any purpose 

15 other than to carry out the elk management plan. 

Æ 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6049

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

HERLEY L. LOCKE, a/k/a Pooh,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District

Judge. (CR-94-65-H)

Submitted: November 20, 1997 Decided: December 9, 1997

Before MURNAGHAN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Herley L. Locke, Appellant Pro Se. John Howarth Bennett, OFFICE OF

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order denying his

motion for reduction of sentence and motion to modify term of

imprisonment. We have reviewed the record and the district court's

opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on

the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Locke, No.

CR-94-65-H (E.D.N.C. Dec. 11, 1996). 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
STATE v. OXENDALE.

No. COA08-257.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed October 21, 2008.

Certification Date November 10, 2008.

Appeal from Rutherford (06CRS4998, 06CRS4999).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
IN RE C.T.J.

No. COA08-75.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed July 1, 2008.

Certification Date July 21, 2008.

Appeal from Harnett (07J89).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
----

(2004/C 65 E/242)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2829/03

by Jan Mulder (ELDR) to the Commission

(23 September 2003)

Subject:   Cost of foot-and-mouth disease outbreaks

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(31 October 2003)

With reference to the questions raised by the Honourable Member, the Commission would like to refer to the new Directive on Community measures for the control of foot-and-mouth disease, which was adopted by the Council on 29 September 2003 (1).

The new Directive takes due account of the Resolution of the Parliament of 12 December 2002. It also incorporates the recommendations made by the Parliament, the European Committee of the Regions and the European Economic and Social Committee during the consultation process.

Before responding to each of the individual questions, it should be recalled that the underlying principles of the newly adopted Directive remain unchanged compared to the measures provided for in Council Directive 85/511/EEC of 18 November 1985 introducing Community measures for the control of foot-and-mouth disease (2), albeit with a shift of emphasis regarding the use of emergency vaccination. At its meeting of 12 June 2003 the Council of Ministers of Agriculture agreed therefore to maintain the existing principles of Community contributions to the costs incurred by Member States for the control and eradication of foot-and-mouth disease, as laid down in Council Decision 90/424/EEC of 26 June 1990 on expenditure in the veterinary field (3).

----

(1)  http://register.consilium.eu.int/pdf/en/03/st12/st12430-ad01en03.pdf

(2)OJ L 315, 26.11.1985.

(3)OJ L 224, 18.8.1990.

----
IN RE C.T.

No. COA08-1025.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed February 17, 2009.

Certification Date March 9, 2009.

Appeal from Craven (06JT154).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
wiei_ex1014.htm



EXHIBIT 10.14




 





 


 




  





1











  






 


 





 




  





2











  






 


 





 




  





3











  






 


 





 




  





4











  






 


 





 




  





5











  






 


 





 




  





6











  






 


 





 




  





7











  






 


 





 




  





8











  






 


 





 




  





9











  






 


 





 




  





10











  






 


 





 




  





11











  






 


 





 




  





12











  






 


 





 




  





13











  






 





 


 


14
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-02-1998
<CASH>                                          74,315
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                81,715
<PP&E>                                           7,500
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (5,375)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  83,840
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           53,006
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        21,181
<OTHER-SE>                                       8,208
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    83,840
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                16,380
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (16,380)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (16,380)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.01)
        

</TABLE>
RICHARDSON v. MAXIM HEALTHCARE, et al.

No. 102A08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 11, 2008.

Anne R. Harris, Greensboro, George W. Lennon, Raleigh, for Richardson.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 9th day of September 2008 by Defendant to Strike:

"Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference this the 11th day of December 2008."
STATE v. WITHERS.

No. COA08-85.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed October 21, 2008.

Certification Date November 10, 2008.

Appeal from Guilford (04CRS72818).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
STATE of North Carolina v. Mark Dwayne GOVAN.

No. 140P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Aug. 20, 2015.

Sharon L. Smith, Raleigh, for Govan, Mark Dwayne.

M. Denise Stanford, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Garland N. Yates, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by the Defendant on the 21st of April 2015 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 20th of August 2015."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 21st of April 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 20th of August 2015."

JACKSON, J. recused.
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Captaris, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended
September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Form 10-Q/A), I, Peter Papano, the Chief Financial Officer and Secretary of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Form 10-Q/A fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Form 10-Q/A fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dated: March 12, 2004



/s/    PETER PAPANOPeter Papano Chief Financial Officer and Secretary
# Commission Implementing Decision of 11 June 2014 setting out the annual breakdown by Member State of the global resources            of the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund available in the framework of shared management for the period 2014-2020 (notified            under document C(2014) 3781) (2014/372/EU)         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Decision

# of 11 June 2014

# setting out the annual breakdown by Member State of the global resources of the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund available                        in the framework of shared management for the period 2014-2020                     

# *(notified under document C(2014) 3781)*

# (2014/372/EU)

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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

Having regard to the Regulation (EU) No 508/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on the European                           Maritime and Fisheries Fund and repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 2328/2003, (EC) No 861/2006, (EC) No 1198/2006 and (EC)                           No 791/2007 and Regulation (EU) No 1255/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council(1), and in particular Article 16(2) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Pursuant to Article 13(1) of the Regulation (EU) No 508/2014, the resources available for commitments from the European Maritime                              and Fisheries Fund (‘EMFF’) for the period 2014 to 2020 under shared management amount to EUR 5 749 331 600 in current prices,                              in accordance with the annual breakdown set out in Annex II to that Regulation.

(2)Pursuant to Article 16(2) of the Regulation (EU) No 508/2014, it is necessary to set out the annual breakdown by Member State                              of the global resources allocated under the EMFF under shared management,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

# Article 1U.K.

The annual breakdown by Member State of the global resources available from the EMFF for the period 2014 to 2020 under shared                     management shall be as set out in the Annex.                  

# Article 2U.K.

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 11 June 2014.

*For the Commission*                            

Maria Damanaki                            

*Member of the Commission*                            

## ANNEXU.K.GLOBAL RESOURCES BY MEMBER STATE FOR THE EUROPEAN MARITIME AND FISHERIES FUND FOR THE PERIOD 2014 TO 2020

1

OJ L 149, 20.5.2014, p. 1.
# CE2004088EN.01011701.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/117 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/117

---

(2004/C 88 E/0123)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2815/03

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(19 September 2003)

Subject:   Arrest and detention of Rev. Rinaldy Damanik in Central Sulawesi, Indonesia

Subject:

I have received several concerned letters regarding the case of the Reverend Rinaldy Damanik, a leader of the Protestant Christian Community in Central Sulawesi, Indonesia. Has the Commission any further information on his current situation and are there any plans to investigate his case?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(15 October 2003)

(15 October 2003)

The Commission is following the case of Rev Rinaldy Damanik who has been accused of illegal possession of weapons. According to the Protestant Church Council in Jakarta (PGI), the case against the Christian Minister has been fabricated. As the three year sentence for illegal possession of weapons has been appealed, and the case is still pending, any possibility of making representations has been greatly reduced.

The Commission Delegation in Jakarta is closely monitoring the case and has contacted the minister's lawyer, Mr Johnson Panjaitan to receive updated news about his request to be released or to be put under house arrest pending the appeal. The authorities have not yet responded to the request, despite the fact that the legal basis for his detention has expired.

---
#### In the Matter of Virginia B., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant.

[801 NYS2d 409]

In a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, the appeal is from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Queens County (Bogacz, J), dated January 23, 2004, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court dated August 1, 2003, made after a hearing, finding that the appellant committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crimes of robbery in the second degree (two counts), grand larceny in the fourth degree (two counts), and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree (two counts), adjudged her to be a juvenile delinquent, and, inter alia, placed her in restrictive placement for a period of three years. The appeal brings up for review the fact-finding order dated August 1, 2003.

*1030Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Family Court found that, on April 3, 2003, the appellant, then age 14, committed two separate robberies at an apartment building in Queens. The appellant argues that the Presentment Agency failed to prove the requisite elements of the offenses beyond a reasonable doubt. We disagree.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the presentment agency *(see Matter of Janay P., 11*AD3d 697 [2004]), we find that it was legally sufficient to support the fact-finding determination. With respect to both robberies, the totality of the circumstances demonstrated that at least an implied threat was present *(see People v Lopez,*161 AD2d 670, 671 [1990]). Moreover, the fact that the stolen property was returned to the victims after adults intervened does not negate that a completed larceny took place, since the appellant briefly “exercised dominion and control wholly inconsistent with the continued rights of the owner” *(People v Dingle,*122 AD2d 280, 281 [1986] [internal quotation marks omitted]).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Cozier, J.P., S. Miller, Mastro and Rivera, JJ., concur.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE:

AMENDMENT OF RULE 219(b) OF THE

PENNSYLVANIA RULES OF

DISCIPLINARY ENFORCEMENT :

:

:

:

: NO. 169

DISCIPLINARY RULES

DOCKET

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 24 th day of September , 201 8 , upon the recommendation of the

Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania ; the proposal having been

submitted without publication in the interests of justice pursuant to Pa.R.J.A. No.

103(a)(3) :

IT IS ORDERED pursuant to Article V, Section 10 of the Constitution of

Pennsylvania that Rule 219 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement is

amended in the attached form.

This ORDER shall be processed in ac cordance with Pa.R.J.A. No. 103(b), and

shall be effective immediately

.

Material to be added i s bold ed and underlined.

Material to be deleted is bold ed and in brackets.