alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
----

(2004/C 65 E/198)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2603/03

by Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Council

(20 August 2003)

Subject:   Risk of deportation of leading Chechen from France to the Russian Federation

According to information gathered by the Chechnya Committee, Mr Rouslan Maigov, his wife and their four children have applied for asylum in France. Mr Rouslan Maigov is the brother of Aslambek Maigov, the Moscow representative of the Chechen President Asian Maskhadov. Mr Rouslan Maigov has been arrested and beaten up several times in Russia and Chechnya. When last arrested in December 2001, a ransom of RUB 160 000 was paid to secure his release. Mr Rouslan Maigov is under particular threat for carrying cassettes in which President Maskhadov conveyed his orders to Mr Maigov's brother. Nevertheless, OFPRA (the French Refugee Office) followed by the appeal committee have rejected the application by Mr Rouslan Maigov and his family for asylum in France on the grounds that if Mr Aslambek Maigov is in Moscow without, apparently, being under threat, his brother Rouslan and his family could live in Russia. The argument put forward by the competent French authorities obviously does not take account of the arrests and maltreatment to which the Russian authorities have subjected Mr Rouslan Maigov in the past or the obvious ‘interest’ which the Russian authorities have shown in Mr Rouslan Maigov, or the fact that it is unfortunately the current practice in Russia to subject the members of leading Chechens' families to threats, intimidation and violence by way of a warning. Finally, Mr Rouslan Maigov, his wife and four children will be expelled from the reception centre for asylum-seekers at Marseilles in the next few days and will be forced to leave the country.

Is the Council aware of the situation of Mr Rouslan Maigov and his family? Does the Council consider that the decision by the competent French authorities is consistent with the common rules on the right of asylum laid down in the Schengen agreements? In more general terms, given the serious threats to which Chechens in the Russian Federation are subjected, does the Council not consider that it should take emergency measures to block any decision to expel Chechens living in the countries which are signatories to the Schengen agreements?

Reply

(17 November 2003)

The Council cannot intervene in individual asylum applications in the Member States, or in other individual cases such as those referred to in the question

----
STATE of North Carolina v. Renaldo Miquel MARTIN, Defendant.

No. COA15-986.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

May 3, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

No Error.
# C_2008008EN.01001202.xml

| 12.1.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 8/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 8/12

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 20 November 2007 — P v Commission

(Case T-103/05) (1)

1

(Civil service - Remuneration - Improper absence - Loss of the benefit of remuneration - Article 59 of the Staff Regulations - Medical certificate)

(2008/C 8/22)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: P (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: M. Griful i Ponsati, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented initially by J. Currall and L. Lozano Palacios, and later by J. Currall and I. Martínez del Peral, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Annulment of the Commission's decision of 10 May 2004 declaring the applicant's absence improper from 16 March 2004 and suspending payment her salary from 15 April 2004 until the date on which she commenced performing her duties at the DG Press and Communication in Brussels.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the application;

| 2. | Orders the parties to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 132 of 28.5.2005.

1

---
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

J.W., The Father

, Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES and GUARDIAN AD

LITEM PROGRAM

, Appellee s

.

No. 4D 18

- 3316

[ February 14, 2019 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Yael Gamm , Judge; L.T. Case No. 18

- 1694 CJ DP

.

Lori D. Shelby, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee and Carolyn Schwarz, Assistant Attorney General, Fort Lauderdale, for Department of Children

and Families.

Nancy Gregoire of Birnbaum, Lippman & Gregoire, PLLC, Fort Lauderdale, and Thomasina Moore, Statewide Director Guardian Ad Litem Office, Tallahassee for Guardian Ad Litem Program.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

M AY
, C IKLIN and K LINGENSMITH

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
In the Matter of the ESTATE OF John W. POPE, Jr., Deceased. Jane Forbes Pope, Petitioner v. Thomas J. Rollins, Executor of the Estate of John W. Pope, Jr., Amanda Joyce Pope and James Arthur Pope, in their capacities as co-Trustees of the Pope Family Trust for the benefit of John W. Pope, Jr., and The John William Pope Foundation, Respondents.

No. 462P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

February 5, 2009.

Alexander C. Dale, Wilmington, Stuart B. Dorsett, Raleigh, for Jane Pope.

*130Johnny M. Loper, Jean T. Adams, Elizabeth Arias, Winston-Salem, Sarah L. Buthe, for Rollins, et al.

Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ___, 666 S.E.2d 140.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 6th day of October 2008 by Petitioner (Jane Pope) 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 day of February 2009."
EXHIBIT 13.2



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 Annual Report on Form 20-F of Scottish Power plc (the Company) for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report) , I, David Nish, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, that:



|1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | The information in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dated: June 25, 2004



/s/ David NishDavid NishChief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                                 233
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                          674
<ALLOWANCES>                                           (25)
<INVENTORY>                                            588
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     1,531
<PP&E>                                               1,118
<DEPRECIATION>                                        (473)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       7,444
<COMMON>                                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<BONDS>                                                  0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                    0
<OTHER-SE>                                           3,041
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         7,444
<SALES>                                                 35
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                        35
<CGS>                                                   20
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                          287
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      (258)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                      73
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                        (14)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                    (14)
<DISCONTINUED>                                        (370)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                           (14)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (0,002)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       (0,002)


</TABLE>
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 June 30, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:



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



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







|Dated:  August 10, 2011 |  | By:  /s/  Ralph M. Amato              
|----------------------- |  | --------------------------------------
|                        |  | RALPH M. AMATO
Chief Financial Officer
# Commission Regulation (EU) No 339/2014Show full title

Commission Regulation (EU) No 339/2014 of 28 March 2014 establishing a prohibition of fishing for blue ling in the Union and            international waters of Vb, VI, VII by vessels flying the flag of Spain         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Regulation (EU) No 339/2014                     

# of 28 March 2014

# establishing a prohibition of fishing for blue ling in the Union and international waters of Vb, VI, VII by vessels flying                        the flag of Spain                     

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring                           compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy(1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Council Regulation (EU) No 43/2014 of 20 January 2014 fixing for 2014 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and                              groups of fish stocks, applicable in Union waters and, to Union vessels, in certain non-Union waters(2), lays down quotas for 2014.

(2)According to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation                              by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for                              2014.

(3)It is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

## Article 1U.K.Quota exhaustion

The fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein                     for 2014 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.                  

## Article 2U.K.Prohibitions

Fishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in                     the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited                     to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.                  

## Article 3U.K.Entry into force

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*.                  

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 28 March 2014.

*For the Commission,*                            

*On behalf of the President,*                            

Lowri Evans                            

*Director-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries*                            

## ANNEXU.K.

1

OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.                           

2

OJ L 24, 28.1.2014, p. 1.
# CE2004084EN.01002401.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/24

---

(2004/C 84 E/0026)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2449/03

by Georges Berthu (NI) to the Commission

(23 July 2003)

Subject:   Conservation of hedgerows

Subject:

Hedgerow conservation appears very often to be in the general interest because hedgerows safeguard biodiversity and inhibit run-off and soil erosion, etc. In France, some départements now grant aid for the replanting of hedgerows.

However, besides planting there is also the question of upkeep, which in a way is currently a free service provided by the farmer to the local community.

Does the Commission think it would be possible to offset the cost of this service by introducing assistance for the annual maintenance of hedgerows?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(12 September 2003)

(12 September 2003)

Agri-environmental measures are included in the measures provided for in the national rural development plan for France. The plan contains a list of measures in this area that can be adapted by each region wishing to implement them. Planting, improving and maintaining hedgerows are listed as measures eligible for assistance from Community funds. Therefore, aid for the maintenance of hedgerows already exists.

---
# CE2004078EN.01020901.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/209 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/209

---

(2004/C 78 E/0213)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3011/03

by Elspeth Attwooll (ELDR) to the Commission

(8 October 2003)

Subject:   Fisheries: national boundaries within the EU's EEZ

Subject:

In the hypothetical situation that national boundaries were to be established within the European Union's Exclusive Economic Zone, where within the ICES zones IIa, IV (a, b and c), Vb (1 and 2), VI (a and b), VII (a, d, e, f, g, h and j) and XII would those boundaries lie?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(24 October 2003)

(24 October 2003)

The Commission informs the Honourable Member that the Member States are responsible for defining their exclusive economic zones and the boundaries between sea areas where such a definition is necessary as a result of opposing or adjacent coastlines. They are defined in accordance with the rules of the international law of the sea.

The Member States have adopted national legislation defining the boundaries in the zones referred to in the Honourable Member's question, with the exception of International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) zone XII, which only covers international waters.

---
EXHIBIT 8.1

                        INDUSTRIAS BACHOCO, S.A. DE C.V.

                      SUBSIDIARIES AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2004

1.   Bachoco, S.A. de C.V.

2.   Operadora de Servicios de Personal, S.A. de C.V.

3.   Servicios de Personal Administrativo, S.A. de C.V.

4.   SEPETEC, S.A. de C.V.

5.   Acuicola Bachoco, S.A. de C.V.

6.   Huevo y Derivados, S.A. de C.V.

7.   Pecuarius Laboratorios, S.A. de C.V.

8.   Aviser, S.A. de C.V.

9.   Campi Alimentos, S.A. de C.V.

10.  SECBA, S.A. de C.V.

Each of the subsidiaries listed above is incorporated under the laws of Mexico.
Exhibit 99.8

CONSENT OF STEPHANE BLAIS

Reference is made to the Annual Report on Form 40-F and the documents incorporated by reference therein (the 40-F) of Goldcorp
Inc. (the Company) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013, and any amendments thereto, to be filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to the United States Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and the Annual Information Form (the AIF) and Managements Discussion and Analysis (MD&A) of the Company for the year then ended, which are filed as exhibits to and incorporated by reference in the 40-F.

I hereby consent to the references to, and the information derived from, the following report(s) and to the references, as applicable, to
my name in connection with (including, as an expert or qualified person) the following report(s) and documents:



|1. | The technical report dated March 14, 2011, as amended March 30, 2011, entitled Red Lake Gold Operation, Ontario, Canada, NI 43-101 Technical Report (the Red Lake Report); and
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | The 40-F, the MD&A and the AIF, which include references in connection with information relating to the Red Lake Report and the Red Lake Gold Mines, and the properties described therein.
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I also hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of such information contained in the 40-F, the MD&A and the AIF into Registration
Statement Nos. 333-126038, 333-126039, 333-126040, 333-151243, 333-151251, 333-174376, 333-181116 and 333-188805 on Form S-8 of the Company.

Date: March
31, 2014



/s/ Stephane BlaisName: Stephane Blais, P.Eng.
STATE v. McNEILL.

No. COA08-228.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed December 16, 2008.

Certification Date January 5, 2009.

Appeal from Lee (07CRS51043).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
STATE of North Carolina v. Philip Ray DAWKINS.

No. 83P04-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 13, 2016.

Bruce T. Cunningham, Jr., Southern Pines, for Dawkins, Philip Ray.

Daniel O'Brien, Assistant Attorney General, for State of N.C.

Joseph L. Hyde, Assistant Attorney General, for State of N.C.

T. Lynn Clodfelter, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 22nd of March 2016 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 13th of April 2016."

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 22nd of March 2016 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Stanly County, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court of that County:

> "Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 13th of April 2016."
# CE2004065EN.01003701.xml

| 13.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 65/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 65/37

---

(2004/C 65 E/036)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0596/03

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(28 February 2003)

Subject:   Follow-up of new situations in terms of economic development in EU regions

Subject:

The Swedish Institute for Growth Policy Studies recently published a report on the state of the regions in 2002. This report shows that central Norrland in Sweden had the worst employment trend in the entire Union between 1996 and 2001. The trend in GRP does not look much better. Central Norrland is in 198th place of the EU's 204 regions.

These are interesting figures in that they illustrate what has happened in Sweden since the country's accession to the EU.

Does the Commission take due account of such information when future structural aid is discussed? What lessons can be learned from the case of central Norrland since EU accession?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(10 April 2003)

(10 April 2003)

The performance of the regions in Sweden has varied considerably over recent years, although the evidence suggests that the region of Mellersta Norrland has performed less well than many other regions of the Union.

The second progress report on economic and social cohesion (1), adopted by the Commission on 30 January 2003, presents the most recent statistical information for all regions in the 15 Member States and in the new Member States.

1

The report shows that between 1995 and 2000, gross domestic product (GDP) per head adjusted the differences in purchasing in Mellersta Norrland fell relative to the rest of the Union from 108,6 % to 97,1 % of the Union average. For Sweden as a whole, the figure increased slightly over this period from 106,1 % to 106,6 % of the Union average.

This trend seems to be confirmed in the Swedish report ‘Regionernas tillstånd 2002’ prepared by the Swedish Institute for Growth Policy Studies.

On the other hand, unemployment in the region is declining, falling from 111⁄2 % in 1996 to 7 % in 2001. This represents a reversal compared to the years preceding accession, when the rate increased markedly — from just under 4 % to 10 % between 1991 to 1995.

For the period after 2006 the Commission will make a proposal to the Parliament and Council for the reform of European cohesion policy in the framework of the third report on economic and social cohesion which will be published before the end of 2003.

---

(1)  COM(2003) 34 final.

1

---