alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# CE2004078EN.01040401.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/404 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/404

---

(2004/C 78 E/0426)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2406/03

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(21 July 2003)

Subject:   Motor-vehicle insurance

Subject:

On 19 June 2003, the Belgian Insurance Ombudsman presented her annual report. The report indicates that, as from 1 January 2004, the no-claims bonus system will be replaced by a ‘claims history certificate’.

The annual report of the Joint Motor Vehicle Insurance Fund for 2001 shows that, between 1997 and 2001, the number of accidents involving uninsured vehicles increased by 70 % — from about 4 950 to about 8 450. The Joint Motor Vehicle Insurance Fund compensates the victims of uninsured drivers. It makes such payments from funds contributed by the insurance companies, i.e. ‘inter alia’ by drivers who properly insure themselves and their vehicles.

On a more general level, the number of uninsured drivers in Belgium is estimated at 100 000. A large proportion of that number are drivers who can no longer secure cover with proper insurance companies because of their history of making claims: either specific insurance companies are no longer willing to insure them or else the premiums are so high as to be unaffordable. As from 1 November 2003, such drivers in Belgium will be able to receive assistance from what is known as the ‘Rating Office’. Any losses would then be borne by all the insurance companies combined, i.e. ‘inter alia’ by drivers who properly insure themselves and their vehicles.

In its answer to Oral Question H-0525/02 (1), the Commission said that only those who caused damage should be required to pay compensation for such damage. In its answer, the Commission also took the view that obligatory no-claims bonus systems were prohibited. The Commission also stated that free trade in insurance products was in the interests of the vast majority of motorists who could choose the insurance company which rewarded good drivers by charging lower premiums.

1

Does the Commission share the view that the ‘claims history certificate’ is nothing more than a disguised no-claims bonus system? If not, why not? If so, what alternative can it propose in this instance?

Does the Commission share the view that, by virtue of their contribution to the Joint Motor Vehicle Insurance Fund or to the Rating Office, good drivers are in one way or another indirectly footing the bill for damage caused by the ‘accident-prone’ persons referred to in the Commission's answer of 3 September 2002? How does it justify that situation? What alternative can it propose?

Although third-party liability insurance is compulsory, the number of uninsured drivers is increasing daily. What measures is the Commission proposing which it or the Member States must take in order to (a) significantly reduce that number and (b) simultaneously ensure that every driver may have access to affordable third-party liability insurance?

---

(1)  Oral answer given on 3 September 2002.

1

---
# CE2004078EN.01012102.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/121 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/121

---

(2004/C 78 E/0123)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2548/03

by Joan Vallvé (ELDR) to the Commission

(31 July 2003)

Subject:   Linguistic coexistence as reflected in Spanish passports

Subject:

The resolution of 10 July 1995 (1) requires all Member States to adjust the format of their passports by replacing the term ‘European Communities’ with ‘European Union’.

1

In connection with this adjustment, a proposal has been tabled in the Spanish Congress of Deputies to recognise the coexistence of official languages in the passports issued to citizens living in an autonomous community where there is more than one official language. The Spanish Government, however, refuses to accept that proposal, citing the resolution of 23 June 1981 (2).

2

Given that Article I-3 of the draft Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe states that ‘The Union shall respect its rich cultural and linguistic diversity’ and Article II-22, moreover, stipulates that ‘The Union shall respect cultural, religious and linguistic diversity’, thus echoing the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and having regard to the conclusions arising from European Year of Languages, as laid down by decision of Parliament and the Council: Will the Commission propose that the above resolution be amended so that, whenever the case arises, all the official languages in an EU Member State can be covered?

Joint answer to

Written Questions E-2521/03 and E-2548/03

given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(24 September 2003)

(24 September 2003)

The Commission would point out that, according to the Resolution of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States meeting within the Council on 23 June 1981, entries on passports must be made in the official language(s) of the Member State issuing the passport.

It is for each Member State to decide which is or are its official language or languages.

The Commission is not, therefore, planning to propose an amendment to that Resolution.

---

(1)  OJ C 200, 4.8.1995, p. 1.

1

(2)  OJ C 241, 19.9.1981, p. 1.

2

---
STATE v. Felix Ricardo SALDIERNA.

No. 271PA15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Nov. 17, 2015.

W. Rob Heroy, Charlotte, for Saldierna, Felix.

Kimberly N. Callahan, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

R. Andrew Murray, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 16th of November 2015 by Defendant:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 17th of November 2015."

Defendant shall have up to and including the 14th day of January 2016 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
Order entered October 16, 2017

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-17-01086-CV

CITY OF DALLAS, Appellant

V.

MARKO PRINCIP, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-16-00202-B

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s October 12, 2017 motion for extension of time to file a 

brief. We GRANT the motion and extend the time to November 16, 2017. We caution 

appellant that further extension requests in this accelerated appeal will be disfavored.

/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT

CHIEF JUSTICE
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

E R R A T A

June 27, 2006 

Appeal No. 05-5106 

Precedential Majority Opinion, Pafford v HHS

Decided June 20, 2006 

Page 1, footnote 1, line 2: please delete “German measles” and insert “whooping 

cough”.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

J.C., the mother,

Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES,

Appellee.

No. 4D15-4570

[April 6, 2016]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; Kathleen Kroll, Judge; L.T. Case No. 2014DP300378 JL.

Antony P. Ryan, Regional Counsel, and Richard G. Bartmon, Assistant 

Regional Counsel, Office of Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel, 

West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Meredith K. Hall, Bradenton, for appellee Department of Children and 

Families.

Gale Forman Collins, Sanford, for appellee Guardian ad Litem Program.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See S.M. v. Dep’t of Children and Families, 40 Fla. L. Weekly 

D2592 (Fla. 4th DCA Nov. 18, 2015). 

WARNER, MAY and CONNER, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
# CE2004070EN.01017002.xml

| 20.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 70/170 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 70/170

---

(2004/C 70 E/179)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2938/03

by Philip Claeys (NI) to the Commission

(6 October 2003)

Subject:   Commission communication on immigration, integration and employment

Subject:

In its communication (1), the Commission says on page 10 that ‘the costs and benefits of immigration are not evenly distributed’. On page 11 it goes on to say that ‘this does not exclude adverse effects on particular groups or sectors. Empirical findings point towards the concentration of undesirable effects on blue-collar workers in manufacturing industries and on unskilled labour in services’.

1

This is a serious problem, not least because of the size of the group concerned. It is primarily the most vulnerable groups in our society that are hardest hit by the negative effects of immigration, not only in socio-economic terms but also in other ways (alienation in whole areas of cities because local people choose to leave, breakdown of social infrastructure, crime and so on. Although the Commission recognises the problem it simply glosses over it.

What measures is the Commission proposing to tackle this problem?

Are any such programmes currently under way?

---

(1)  COM(2003) 336.

1

---
STATE v. Salim Abdu GOULD.

No. 91P14-3.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Sept. 24, 2015.

Salim Abdu Gould, Windsor, for Gould, Salim Abdu.

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

Valerie Mitchell Asbell, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 19th of August 2015 by Defendant to Proceed In Forma Pauperis:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 24th of September 2015."
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.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board’s Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company.  The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated.  The notices also will be available for inspection at the office of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors.  Comments must be received not later than September 29, 2005.

**A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta**                     (Andre Anderson, Vice President) 1000 Peachtree Street, NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30303:                

*1.  Clara Brown*, Jasper, Tennessee; to acquire additional voting shares of General Bancshares, Inc., and thereby indirectly acquire Citizens State Bank, both of Jasper, Tennessee.                

*2. Robert Thomas, Monteagle, Tennessee,*

*Robert Thomas, Jr., Signal Mountain, Tennessee,*

*David Thomas, Chattanooga, Tennessee, and*

*Frank Thomas, Monteagle, Tennessee;*

to acquire additional voting shares of General Bancshares, Inc., Jasper, Tennessee, and thereby indirectly acquire Citizens State Bank, Jasper, Tennessee. 

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, September 9, 2005.

Robert deV. Frierson,

Deputy Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 05-18302 Filed 9-14-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              NOV-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   FEB-28-1998
<CASH>                                               91573
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       938295
<ALLOWANCES>                                         70250
<INVENTORY>                                         920063
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   1956516
<PP&E>                                             3272288
<DEPRECIATION>                                     1537882
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     3796219
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              2153906
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                         496236
<COMMON>                                             21939
<OTHER-SE>                                          339072
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       3796219
<SALES>                                            1511156
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   1511156
<CGS>                                              1026916
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      1026916
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    693060
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       937
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   51471
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (259420)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (259420)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (259420)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        (0.18)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (0.18)
        


</TABLE>
STATE of North Carolina v. Thomas Lindell ROBINSON.

No. 412P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 11, 2008.

Daniel Shatz, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Robinson.

*527Chris Sinha, Assistant Attorney General, G. Dewey Hudson, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by the Defendant on the 9th day of September 2008 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30, and the motion to strike 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 strike the appeal is

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 11th day of December 2008."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 9th day of September 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 11th day of December 2008."
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 97-4397

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Robert Lee Weaselhead, Jr. *

* [PUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: January 11, 1999

Filed: January 29, 1999

___________

Before BOWMAN, Chief Judge, McMILLIAN, RICHARD S. ARNOLD, FAGG,

WOLLMAN, BEAM, LOKEN, HANSEN, MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD,

MURPHY, En Banc.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Chief Judge Bowman, Judge Richard S. Arnold, Judge Fagg, Judge Morris S.

Arnold, and Judge Murphy would affirm the order of the district court rejecting

Weaselhead’s claim of double jeopardy and denying his motion to dismiss Count III

of the superseding indictment. Judge McMillian, Judge Wollman, Judge Beam, Judge

Loken, and Judge Hansen would reverse that order.
-2-

By the vote of an equally divided Court, the order of the district court is

affirmed.

A true copy.

Attest:

 CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
# CE2004078EN.01044201.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/442 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/442

---

(2004/C 78 E/0464)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2916/03

by Marianne Thyssen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 September 2003)

Subject:   Community financial assistance for transnational producer organisations

Subject:

Regulation (EC) 2200/96 (1) provides for Community financial assistance for producer organisations on condition that they have established an operational programme and set up an operational fund.

1

Operational funds are financed from producer contributions and Community assistance representing a maximum 4,1 % of the producer organisation's sales. The funding ratio is 50 %: 50 % in the case of national measures. That means that in such cases the operational fund represents a maximum 8,2 % of sales.

In the case of transnational measures the funding ratio is 60 %: 40 %. However, a problem arises here in so far as the percentage of assistance remains fixed at a maximum 4,1 %. That means in effect that the operational fund is restricted in the case of transnational cooperation, although it is precisely such cooperation that the regulation seeks to promote.

Does the Commission recognise this problem? If so, will it very shortly be taking measures to rectify this contradiction in the legislation by permitting a derogation from the maximum percentage of assistance of 4,1 % in the case of transnational producer organisations?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(5 November 2003)

(5 November 2003)

In line with the commitments it has made to Parliament in particular the Commission has already devoted a great deal of attention to simplifying and clarifying the implementing rules for common organisation of the market in fruit and vegetables.

It has, in close consultation with Member States and interested parties, identified a number of problems to be tackled, including that raised by the Honourable Member, who correctly states that the present 4,1 % aid ceiling often makes it difficult in practice to apply a Community part-financing rate of 60 %.

The Commission is reflecting on possible solutions. The budgetary implications of various options will be examined and the budget neutrality requirement reflected in the proposal for amendment of Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 (2) that the Commission will be making to the Council in furtherance of the ongoing process of simplifying this particular market organisation.

2

Simplification will be carried out as quickly as the work programme of the Institutions involved permits.

---

(1)  OJ L 297, 21.11.1996, p. 1.

1

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 of 28 October 1996 on the common organisation of the markets in fruit and vegetables.

2

---
(August 19, 2005)

#### In the Matter of Marcelo Puello, Respondent, v Board of Elections in the City of New York, Respondent, and Sosa A. Jimenez et al., Appellants.

[799 NYS2d 900]

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Jacqueline W Silbermann, J.), entered August 18, 2005, unanimously affirmed for the reasons stated by Silbermann, J., without costs or disbursements. No opinion. Concur—Saxe, J.P., Marlow, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.
Exhibit 31.2





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER





I, Ralph M. Amato, certify that:



1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of BoysToys.com, Inc.



2.   Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;



3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;



4.   The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 143a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:



a)   designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;



b)   evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of the quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"; and



c)   presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;



5.   The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



a)   all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize, and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and



b)   any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and





|Date:November 14, 2007 | By:/s/ Ralph M. AmatoRalph M. Amato
Chief Financial Officer
|---------------------- | -----------------------------------------------------------
|                       |