alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# CE2004065EN.01001501.xml

| 13.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 65/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 65/15

---

(2004/C 65 E/015)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3525/02

by Concepció Ferrer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 December 2002)

Subject:   Obstacles to trade in the applicant countries

Subject:

In July 2002, the Spanish Secretary of State for Trade processed some 20 complaints from exporters concerning trade obstacles caused by administrative and fiscal problems in the applicant countries. 48 % of the complaints related to Poland and 28 % to the Czech Republic.

The sectors most affected were agri-foods, chemicals, pharmaceuticals, textiles, plastics, wood and furniture, footwear, building materials, capital equipment and automobile parts.

What action is the Commission taking or going to take with a view to preventing such obstacles to trade from proliferating once enlargement has actually taken place?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(30 January 2003)

(30 January 2003)

The Commission considers the smooth functioning of the internal market from the first day of accession of the new Member States as being of primary importance. In order to ensure that this will be the case, intensive monitoring of commitments made under the relevant chapters of the acquis is already being undertaken and will continue until the date of accession. In the event that major disruptions are deemed likely, the Commission reserves the right to invoke the ‘safeguard clause’ announced by the Commission on 9 October 2002 and now accepted by all parties. The safeguard clause in the accession treaty will allow the Commission for a period of three years following accession, if it is considered necessary, to take appropriate action to ensure the orderly implementation of Community law, particularly in areas such as the Internal Market (including food safety) and Justice and Home Affairs. Decisions can be taken already prior to accession.

Upon accession the administrative and informational architecture ensuring the free movement of goods in the current Member States will become operational automatically. No transition periods have been negotiated as regards the principles of mutual recognition and Articles 28-30 of the EC Treaty. The obligations of new Member States to ensure the removal of all obstacles to the free movement of goods will therefore be the same as those currently in place amongst the fifteen existing Members. These obligations apply regardless of whether the goods concerned are covered by harmonised product legislation or not. In the event of non-respect of these obligations, the Commission will examine the possibility of infringement proceedings on the same basis as is currently the case in the Member States.

---
In the Matter of J.E.J.

No. COA15-616.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Dec. 1, 2015.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Dismissed in part and affirmed in part.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion

should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

REVISED AUGUST 28, 2008

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-60096

Summary Calendar

GOVINDA PRASAD PYAKUREL

Petitioner

v.

MICHAEL B MUKASEY, U S ATTORNEY GENERAL

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A98 548 951

Before GARWOOD, JOLLY, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Nepalese citizen Govinda Prasad Pyakurel petitions for review of the

decisions of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying him asylum,

withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT)

and denying his motion to reopen his proceedings. Pyakurel contends that the

BIA and the Immigration Judge incorrectly relied on inconsistencies and

implausibilities that did not go to the heart of his claims. He argues that his

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 27, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-60096

2

motion to reopen should have been granted because the inclusion of the

Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) in the Nepalese government and the

expansion of the Maoist presence in Kathmandu suggest that he cannot safely

reside in that city.

The BIA (even assuming the general credibility of Pyakurel’s evidence)

determined that Pyakurel had not demonstrated either past persecution on a

protected ground or a well grounded fear of such persecution.

The record does not compel the conclusion that the some fifteen minute

incident of December 30, 2003 in Damak – in which Pyakurel, while walking on

a road, was attacked by local Maoist rebels who knocked him down and kicked

him, injuring his left toe, unsuccessfully demanding 80,000 rupees (about

$1,000) of Pyakurel – constituted persecution. See, e.g., Mikhael v. INS, 115

F.3d 299, 304 & n.4 (5th Cir. 1997). 

Nor does the record compel the conclusion that any fear on Pyakurel’s

part of persecution after he returned to his home city of Kathmandu (to which

he took a plane following the December 30 incident), where he, his wife and

children made their home, where he had lived since 1994, and where neither

he nor any of his family had ever suffered any persecution, would be a well

founded or objectively reasonable fear. See, e.g., Lopez-Gomez v. Ashcroft, 263

F.3d 442, 445-46 (5th Cir. 2001).

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Pyakurel’s motion to

reopen. The March 31, 2007 settlement in which the Maoists became a part

of the government does not show that they took any control of the Army, or of

law enforcement or the police, or of the local government in Kathmandu, or

that the authorities there were substantially unable or unwilling to stop

Maoist persecution there of persons such as Pyakurel.

PETITIONS DENIED.
* The case is unanimously ordered submitted without oral argument pursuant to the

applicable rules. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Filed 8/16/96 TENTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JUAN M. ALDRETE, Defendant - Appellant. No. 96-3113 (D.C. No. 95-CV-3540) (District of Kansas)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before SEYMOUR , KELLY and LUCERO , Circuit Judges.
Appellant Juan Aldrete challenges, under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, his conviction of carrying a firearm in relation to a drug trafficking crime. Relying on Bailey v. United States , 116 S. Ct. 501 (1995), appellant argues that he did not actively employ a firearm with respect to the drug transaction in which he was involved. We affirm. Appellant was indicted and pled guilty to distributing cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and carrying a firearm in relation to a drug trafficking crime, 18- 2 -

U.S.C. § 924(c)(1). Appellant was arrested in the driver’s seat of his automobile while attempting to sell about 11 ounces of cocaine to an undercover informant, and a loaded handgun was found wedged in the front seat next to the appellant. Bailey has no bearing on this case because appellant was charged only with the “carrying” prong of section 924(c). From the evidence, it is clear that appellant “carried” a firearm within the meaning of § 924(c). See United States v. Miller , 84 F.3d 1258-60 (10th Cir. 1996). Appellant is not entitled to have his sentence vacated under § 2255. AFFIRMED . The mandate shall issue forthwith. ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Carlos F. Lucero Circuit Judge
STATE of North Carolina v. Jermaine Lamont PURNELL.

No. 473P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 11, 2008.

Jermaine L. Purnell, Pro Se.

LaToya B. Powell, Assistant Attorney General, R. Stuart Albright, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 16th day of October 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 11th day of December 2008."
# CE2004065EN.01008201.xml

| 13.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 65/82 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 65/82

---

(2004/C 65 E/092)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1463/03

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(29 April 2003)

Subject:   Cotton growing in the Alqueva irrigation area

Subject:

In the same way as in other Member States (Spain and Greece), the new Alqueva irrigation area will enable cotton to be grown in Portugal. (Cotton is one of the target crops already identified and the subject of major investment plans).

Will the Commission's proposals be such as to enable Portugal to develop cotton growing on a similar basis to the other two Member States mentioned above? Could the Commission give details in support of its answer?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(5 June 2003)

(5 June 2003)

The Commission is aware of progress with this basin and the potential for crop development.

However, given the cotton aid reform put in place by Regulation 1051/2001 (1) — aimed mainly at discouraging any increase in cotton production that damaged the environment — and the budgetary implications of aid per hectare, it is hard for the Commission to envisage new legislation at this stage aimed at expanding cotton production.

1

That said, it is the Commission's intention nevertheless to undertake a review of the future of cotton aid.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1051/2001 of 22 May 2001 on production aid for cotton, OJ L 148, 1.6.2001.

1

---
LEXISNEXIS RISK DATA MANAGEMENT, INC., et al. v. NC ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF the COURTS, et al.

No. 101PA14-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Aug. 5, 2015.

Reed Hollander, Raleigh, Christopher A. Mohr, for LexisNexis Risk Data Management Inc., et al.

Grady L. Balentine, Jr., Special Deputy Attorney General, for NC Administrative Office of the Courts, et al.

Hugh Stevens, for The News and Observer Publishing Co., et al.

William Jerad Rissler, for Consumer Data Industry Association.

Phillip Absolom Harris, Jr., Joseph S. Dowdy, Raleigh, for Associate Professor Ryan Thornburg.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 24th of September 2014 by Associate Professor Ryan Thornburg for leave to file Amicus Curiae Brief:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th of August 2015."

Unless already submitted, the Amicus Brief shall be submitted to the court within *838the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 28(i).

ERVIN, J. recused.
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.                  

###### National Aeronautics and Space Administration

          - [Notice 05-140]

# AGENCY:

National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

# ACTION:

Notice of availability of inventions for licensing. 

# SUMMARY:

The invention listed below is assigned to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, is the subject of a patent application that has been filed in the United States Patent and Trademark office, and is available for licensing. 

# DATES:

September 16, 2005. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mark Homer, Patent Counsel, NASA Management Office—JPL, 4800 Oak Grove Drive, Mail Stop 180-200, Pasadena, CA 91109; telephone (818) 354-7770. 

NASA Case No. NPO-40267-1: Reconfigurable Tomographic Imaging Spectrometer; 

NASA Case No. NPO-40070-1: High Rated Alumina Nanotemplate Fabrication. 

Dated: September 12, 2005. 

Keith T. Sefton, 

Deputy General Counsel, Administration and Management. 

[FR Doc. 05-18450 Filed 9-15-05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7510-13-P
----

(2004/C 33 E/199)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1998/03

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 June 2003)

Subject:   Penalty clauses relating to access roads in the concessionary agreement concerning Eleftherios Venizelos Airport, Athens

Athens' new airport, Eleftherios Venizelos at Spata, was built under a concessionary agreement concluded between the Greek authorities and the Hochtief consortium in July 1995; the project was completed in March 2001. The EU contributed some EUR 250 million to the project, representing approximately 11 % of the total cost. The concessionary agreement provides for payment of compensation by the Greek authorities to the contractor in the event of the access roads to the airport not being completed on time.

In particular, there is provision for the payment of:

To date, only part of the Stavros-Elefsina section has been opened, while the western ring-road at Avenue Ymittou is expected to open in the autumn of 2003, some 30 months after the airport became operational.

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 2003)

Council Regulation (EC) No 1164/94 of 16 May 1994 establishing a Cohesion Fund (1) does not assign any competence to the Commission to monitor the operation of a project once completed. During the operation of the airport, the Commission would intervene only if it had evidence of failure to comply with European Union legislation. The Commission does not have any such evidence at present.

The question of compliance with the contract between Greece and the concessionaire (penalty clauses, compensation, etc.) does not fall within the Commission's remit. Nevertheless, the national authorities have informed the Commission that no procedure has been launched by the concessionaire to activate penalty clauses.

The Commission intends to carry out an ex-post evaluation of the projects part-financed by the Cohesion Fund as provided for in the regulations. A report on that evaluation will be ready mid-2004 and will be made available to Parliament.

----

(1)OJ L 130, 25.5.1994.

----
STATE v. HICKSON.

No. COA07-321.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed June 17, 2008.

Certification Date July 7, 2008.

Appeal from Forsyth (03CRS57035, 03CRS7129).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
John DOE 1K and John Doe 2K v. ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF CHARLOTTE, NC.

No. 329P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Nov. 5, 2015.

Sam McGee, Charlotte, Attorney at Law, for Doe, John (1K).

Joshua D. Davey, Charlotte, Attorney at Law, for Roman Catholic Diocese of Charlotte, NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 22nd of September 2015 by Plaintiff 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."
STATE of North Carolina v. Cedric Lamont HARRIS.

No. 317P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 9, 2008.

M. Gordon Widenhouse, Jr., Chapel Hill, for Cedric Lamont Harris.

Sandra Wallace-Smith, Assistant Attorney General, Seth Edwards, District Attorney, for State.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 7th day of July 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 9th day of October 2008."
Exhibit 32

                                 BIOCORAL, INC.
                            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 of Biocoral, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-K for the period ending December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Nasser Nassiri, the
President, CEO, Chairman of the Board of the Company and the Principal
Accounting Officer, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my
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 result of operations of the Company.


                                           /s/ Nasser Nassiri
                                           ------------------
                                           Nasser Nassiri
                                           President, CEO, Chairman of the Board
                                           and Principal Accounting Officer

Date: March 28, 2007
In the Matter of J.K., Minor Juvenile.

No. COA15-989.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

March 1, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This Schedule  contains  summary  financial  information  extracted from balance
sheets and income statements of Freedom Chemical Company and Subsidiaries and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000931075
<NAME>                        FREEDOM CHEMICAL COMPANY AND SUBSIDARIES
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-1-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         768
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  45,283
<ALLOWANCES>                                   858
<INVENTORY>                                    47,843
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               105,228
<PP&E>                                         99,274
<DEPRECIATION>                                 37,011
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 250,476
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          48,114
<BONDS>                                        125,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          49,956
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       2
<OTHER-SE>                                     (32,033)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   250,476
<SALES>                                        71,327
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               71,327
<CGS>                                          56,395
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  56,395
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (177)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             3,982
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (712)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   181
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (893)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (893)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        


</TABLE>
1 The Honorable John E. Simko, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of South Dakota, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 03-1034

___________ David L. Yocom, * * Appellant, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Human Services Center, Doctors, * District of South Dakota. Staff and Administrators, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: June 6, 2003 Filed: June 9, 2003

___________ Before WOLLMAN, FAGG, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. David Yocom appeals from the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his civil action. Upon de novo review, we conclude that dismissal of Yocom’s complaint, as time-barred, was proper for the reasons explained by the district court.-2- Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
NO. 12-20-00163-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

IN THE GUARDIANSHIP OF

JAMES M. CAMMACK,

AN INCAPACITATED PERSON

§

§

§

APPEAL FROM THE

COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2

GREGG COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Appellant, Terri Wimberly, filed a motion to dismiss this appeal. The motion states that 

the parties resolved and settled all issues the subject of this appeal. No decision has been 

delivered in this appeal. Accordingly, Appellant’s motion to dismiss is granted, and the appeal is 

dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a).

Opinion delivered October 7, 2020.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

OCTOBER 7, 2020

NO. 12-20-00163-CV

IN THE GUARDIANSHIP OF JAMES M. CAMMACK, 

AN INCAPACITATED PERSON

Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2

of Gregg County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 2019-0293-E)

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the motion of the Appellant to dismiss 

the appeal herein, and the same being considered, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and 

DECREED by this Court that the motion to dismiss be granted and the appeal be dismissed, and 

that the decision be certified to the court below for observance.

By per curiam opinion.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

ERRATA

August 20, 2008 

Appeal No. 2007-1524 

Precedential Opinion, Prasco LLC v. Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp..

Decided: August 15, 2008 

On page 17, line 5: delete “the”