alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# CE2004078EN.01015401.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/154 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/154

---

(2004/C 78 E/0158)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2695/03

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(2 September 2003)

Subject:   Implementation of the Promise programme

Subject:

The Promise programme, which ended in 2002, provided funds totalling EUR 25 million for projects involving the exchange of information, technology and good practice with a view to improving the security of telecommunications networks. What projects have been funded under this programme, with particular reference to Italy? Would the Commission list in full the companies, undertakings and public bodies that submitted projects under the programme, and the companies whose applications were successful? Was the successful completion of the projects monitored, and were their results assessed?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(16 October 2003)

(16 October 2003)

The total spending amount of Promise, as foreseen by its legal basis was EUR 25 million, for five years. The total amount committed was EUR 21 847 032 covering all the period of the programme. An overall information on the spending in 1998 and 1999 and the indication for expenditure with reference to Italy is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

In 2000, after the mid-term review evaluation made by a group of external experts, the Promise programme was redirected towards the eEurope Action plan and in particular the associated benchmarking exercise and exchange of best practices. In this context, the budget of Promise was devoted to call for tenders for studies or surveys launched by the Commission and committed according to public procurement rules. The budget breakdown for 2000, 2001 and 2002 is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat. This includes the names of the contractor and the Member State, where its seat is established. In the case of the Eurobarometer surveys, the indicated contractor is a Belgian company which carried out the contract together with its subsidiaries in each Member State.

During the last two years Promise financed three best practices projects in collaboration with presidency countries; Two ‘e-government’ conferences in Belgium (2001) and Italy (2003) and the ‘eHealth’ Conference (Greece 2003). Furthermore, one work-shop on eEurope 2005 has been organised in Spain, during the Spanish Presidency.

e

The Commission has issued payments for the services received on the basis of invoices and after analysis and acceptance of the technical reports submitted by the contractors according to standard procedures.

A group of external independent experts are currently in charge of the final evaluation of the programme. They work on the basis of the terms of reference agreed in the Promise management committee and will submit their report in November 2003.

---
----

----

| COMPANY'S NAME                                                            | PLACE OF INCORPORATION |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------|
| Hi-Tex Founded By Tefron Ltd.                                             | Israel                 |
| Macro Clothing Ltd.                                                       | Israel                 |
| Tefron USA, Inc., wholly-owned by Tefron U.S. Holdings                    | Delaware               |
| Tefron UK, Ltd., wholly-owned by Macro Clothing Ltd.                      | England                |
| El-Masira Textile Co., wholly-owned by Tefron USA Inc.                    | Jordan                 |
| Tefron Holdings (98) Ltd.                                                 | Israel                 |
| Tefron U.S. Holdings Corp.                                                | Delaware               |
| Tefron Holding Netherlands B.V., wholly-owned by Tefron Ltd.              | Netherlands            |
| Tefron Macro H.K. Ltd., wholly-owned by Macro Clothing Ltd.               | Hong Kong              |
| Dong Guang Macro Clothing Limited, wholly-owned by Tefron Macro H.K. Ltd. | China                  |

----

----
----

(2004/C 33 E/247)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2267/03

by Jules Maaten (ELDR) to the Commission

(9 July 2003)

Subject:   Discrimination against women

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(22 August 2003)

The Commission would draw the Honourable Member's attention to the fact that a large body of Community legislation already exists to implement the principle of equal treatment for men and women in the area of employment and work.

Since the Treaty of Amsterdam came into force in May 1999, a new legal basis, Article 13 of this Treaty, exists, empowering the Council, on the basis of a proposal from the Commission, to take appropriate action in the areas of Community competence and without prejudice to the other provisions of the Treaty, to combat discrimination based, inter alia, on sex.

It should be remembered that, in 2000, on the basis of Article 13 of the Treaty, the Council adopted a directive to combat all discrimination based on race or ethnic origin (1) in employment, access to goods and services, including housing, social protection, social advantages and education.

In this context, the Commission is looking at ways of implementing Article 13 in order to combat sex-based discrimination in areas other than employment and work.

----

(1)  Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin, OJ L 180, 19.7.2000.

----
# The Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Transparency) Regulations 2014 (revoked)

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

Statutory Instruments

# 2014 No. 1261

Financial Services And Markets

# The Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Transparency) Regulations 2014 (revoked)F1

Made

14th May 2014

Laid before Parliament

16th May 2014

Coming into force

6th June 2014

F1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                        

F1Regulations revoked (17.12.2014) by The Payments to Governments and Miscellaneous Provisions Regulations 2014 (S.I. 2014/3293), **reg. 6**
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We have issuedour reports dated February 25, 2011 with respect to the consolidated financial statements, schedules and internal control over financial reporting included in the Annual Report of RAIT Financial Trust and subsidiaries on Form 10-K for the yearended December 31, 2010. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said reports in the Registration Statements of RAIT Financial Trust on Form S-3 (File No. 333-166065, effective on May 7, 2010; File No. 333-152351,effective on August 6, 2008; File No. 333-149340, effective on March 13, 2008; File No. 333-144603, effective on July 16, 2007 and post effective amendment effective April 25, 2008) and Form S-8 (FileNo. 333-151627, effective June 13, 2008; File No. 333-125480, effective on June 3, 2005; File No. 333-100766, effective on October 25, 2002; and File No. 333-67452, effective on August 14, 2001). 

/s/ GRANT THORNTON LLP 

Philadelphia,Pennsylvania 

February 25, 2011 

 
128
Exhibit 8.1

** **

**Subsidiaries of IndustriasBachoco S.A.B. de C.V.**

 

The following chart lists each of our subsidiarieswhich we owned, directly or indirectly, as of December 31, 2011, and April 30, 2012:

 

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

 

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

 

3. Bachoco Comercial, S.A. de C.V.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

7. Secba, S.A. de C.V.

 

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

 

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

 

10. Induba Pavos, S.A de C.V.

 

11. O.K. Industries Inc. and Subsidiaries

 

Each of the Subsidiaries listed is incorporated under the lawsof Mexico, except by O.K. Industries Inc. and Subsidiaries.
----

(2004/C 65 E/127)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2171/03

by Johanna Boogerd-Quaak (ELDR) to the Council

(30 June 2003)

Subject:   Support for rural development

With reference to the resolution adopted by the European Parliament on 5 June 2003 on the proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and repealing Regulation (EC) No 2826/2000, and bearing in mind the opinion of the European Parliament set out in paragraph 1 thereof, can the Council answer the following questions:

Reply

(17 November 2003)

----
DESMOND v. The NEWS & OBSERVER PUBLISHING COMPANY, et al.

No. 207P15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Aug. 20, 2015.

James T. Johnson, Raleigh, for Desmond, Beth.

*196John A. Bussian, Raleigh, for The News and Observer Publishing Company, et al.

Mark J. Prak, Raleigh, for N.C. Association of Broadcasters, et al.

Timothy Nelson, Raleigh, for N.C. Association of Broadcasters, et al.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the conditional motion filed on the 25th of June 2015 by file NC Association of Broadcasters, NC Press Association, the Associated Press, BH Media Group, Inc., Gannett Company, Inc., Halifax Media Group, the Carolina Journal, and Time Warner Cable News for leave to file Amicus Curiae Brief:

> "Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of August 2015."
STATE v. MORRIS.

No. COA08-389.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed December 16, 2008.

Certification Date January 5, 2009.

Appeal from Wake (05CRS35227, 5CRS35229, 05CRS37632).

Case reported without published opinion. No Prejudicial Error.
STATE of North Carolina v. Joseph Velton O'NEAL.

No. COA14-1403.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Oct. 6, 2015.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Affirmed.
# CE2004088EN.01036301.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/363 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/363

---

(2004/C 88 E/0368)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1646/03

by María Rodríguez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(16 May 2003)

Subject:   Application of the safeguard clause in respect of imports into the EU of tinned mandarin-orange segments from China

Subject:

Last October I submitted a priority written question (P-2956/02 (1)) to the Commission on the application of the safeguard clause in respect of the overwhelming increase in imports of tinned mandarin-orange segments from China.

1

In its answer the Commission indicated that it was waiting for the Spanish authorities to provide the necessary documentation since the information previously submitted did not meet the WTO's strict regulations.

Can the Commission confirm whether the Spanish authorities have already submitted all the relevant information requested?

If this is the case, what are the reasons preventing the Commission from taking the steps set out for such cases in Regulation (EC) 2201/96 (2)?

2

---

(1)  OJ C 161 E, 10.7.2003, p. 55.

1

(2)  OJ L 297, 21.11.1996, p. 29.

2

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

Supreme Court No. DA 20

- 0242

STATE OF MONTANA

,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

JOURNEY RYDER JOHN WIENKE,

Defendant and Appellant.

GRANT OF EXTENSION

Pursuant to authority granted under Mont. R. App. P. 26(1), the Appellant is

given an extension of time until June 18 , 2021 to prepare, file and serve the

Appellant’s opening brief.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

May 19 2021

05/19/2021

Case Number: DA 20-0242
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

SEPTEMBER 17, 2009

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 08-16253

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 08-00064-CR-2-LSC-RRA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RICKY GUY LEATHERWOOD,

a.k.a. Slick Rick,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Alabama

_________________________

(September 17, 2009)

Before EDMONDSON, WILSON and FAY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Thomas R. Wolsoncroft, appointed counsel for Ricky Guy Leatherwood, has
filed a motion to withdraw on appeal supported by a brief prepared pursuant to

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our

independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the

relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the

entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is

GRANTED, and the Leatherwood’s convictions and sentences are AFFIRMED.

2
STATE of North Carolina v. Raymond Lee CROOK, Jr., Defendant.

No. COA 15-458.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Jan. 5, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

No Error.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE STATEMENTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED MARCH 31, 1998 AND AS OF
MARCH 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                  0000919604
<NAME> KERATOPLANETES CORP
<MULTIPLIER>                    1
<CURRENCY>                      US dollars

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Mar-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 Apr-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   Mar-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         0
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,278
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       1274
<OTHER-SE>                                     (3,373)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   0
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  110
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (110)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (110)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (110)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.00)


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-7097

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ELTRENTROSE F. LIVERMAN, a/k/a Trent,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District

Judge. (2:95-cr-00151-JBF-FBS-1)

Submitted: August 14, 2008 Decided: August 22, 2008

Before MICHAEL, Circuit Judge, and WILKINS and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Eltrentrose F. Liverman, Appellant Pro Se. Fernando Groene, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Newport News, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Eltrentrose F. Liverman appeals the district court’s

order denying his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(2) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by

the district court. United States v. Liverman, No. 2:95-cr-00151-

JBF-FBS-1 (E.D. Va. filed May 23, 2008; entered May 29, 2008). We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
STATE v. GARDNER.

No. COA07-1548.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed December 2, 2008.

Certification Date December 22, 2008.

Appeal from Pitt (06CRS61286).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
Exhibit
23.1
  CONSENT
OF MARCUM & KLIEGMAN LLP
  INDEPENDENT REGISTERED
PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM’S CONSENT
  We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements of On2
Technologies, Inc. on Form S-3 (File numbers 333-142336 and 333-137577), on Form
S-8 (File number 333-147205) and on Form S-4 (File number 333-145809) of our
report, dated March 10, 2009, with respect to our audit of the consolidated
financial statements and the related consolidated financial statement schedule
of On2 Technologies, Inc. as of December 31, 2008 and for the year then ended,
and our report, dated March 10, 2009, with respect to our audit of the
effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of On2 Technologies,
Inc. as of December 31, 2008, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of
On2 Technologies, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2008.
  /s/
Marcum & Kliegman llp
  Marcum
& Kliegman llp
 New York,
New York
 March 10,
2009
Exhibit 23

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, CHARTERED
  ACCOUNTANTS AND ADVISORS
      PCAOB REGISTERED

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the use, in the amended Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Biocoral
Inc., of our report, dated March 27, 2006, on the internal control over
financial reporting of Biocoral, Inc., and of our report, dated March 27, 2006,
on our audit of the consolidated balance sheets of Biocoral, Inc. and
subsidiaries as of December 31, 2005 and 2004, and the related consolidated
statements of operations, shareholders' equity, and cash flows for each of the
three years in the period ended December 31, 2005.


/s/ Moore & Associates, Chartered
Moore & Associates, Chartered

Las Vegas, Nevada
April 19, 2006

        2675 S. Jones Blvd. Suite 109, Las Vegas, NV 89146 (702)253-7511
                                Fax (702)253-7501
GRIFFITH v. STATE of NC, et al.

No. 166P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 11, 2008.

Robert Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of NC, et al.

Boyd Bennett, for Bennett.

Theodis Beck, for Beck.

James Mitch Johnson, for Johnson.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 7th day of April 2008 by Plaintiff for Relief:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference this the 11th day of June 2008."
Patsy MICHAEL, individually and as Administrator of the Estate of David Gwean Michael, deceased; and Meredith T. Michael, individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Christopher Robert Michael, deceased v. HUFFMAN OIL COMPANY, INC., City of Burlington, North Carolina; Arcadis FPS, Inc., formerly doing business as Finkbeiner, Pettis & Strout, Inc.; and Paul Howard Construction Company, Inc.

No. 325P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

February 5, 2009.

C. Hamilton Jarrett, Raleigh, for Michael.

Thomas N. Griffin, III, John E. Grupp, Charlotte, for Arcadis FPS, Inc.

Patrick H. Flanagan, Ryan D. Bolick, Charlotte, Melody J. Cannady, for City of Burlington.

Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ___, 661 S.E.2d 1.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 8th day of July 2008 by Plaintiffs 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."
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

WILLIAM RAY McNEAL, JR., )

DOC #274245, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D18-3061

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

________________________________ )

Opinion filed June 21, 2019.

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 

9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for 

Pinellas County; Philip J. Federico,

Judge.

William Ray McNeal, Jr., pro se.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

CASANUEVA, KELLY, and SMITH, JJ., Concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Nerley Jean, Appellant.

[799 NYS2d 740]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (D’Emic, J), rendered December 22, 2003, convicting him of assault in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

“To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, it is incumbent on [the] defendant to demonstrate the absence of strategic or other legitimate explanations for counsel’s failure” *(People v Rivera,*71 NY2d 705, 709 [1988]; *see People v Bussey,*6 AD3d 621, 622 [2004], *lv denied*4 NY3d 828 [2005]). “So long as the evidence, the law, and the circumstances of a particular case, viewed in totality and as of the time of the representation, reveal that the attorney provided meaningful representation, the constitutional requirement will have been met” *(People v Baldi,*54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]; *see People v Bussey, supra*at 622).

The record reveals that the defendant was afforded meaningful representation *(see People v Benevento,*91 NY2d 708 [1998]). Cozier, J.P., S. Miller, Mastro and Rivera, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-7387
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee, versus CHARLES PAUL JOHNSON, Plaintiff - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Parkersburg. Charles H. Haden II, Chief District Judge. (CA-96-477-6, CR-88-266) Submitted: January 9, 1997 Decided: January 23, 1997 Before HALL and MI CHAEL, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles Paul Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Rebecca A. Betts, United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, 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 under former F ED . R. CRIM . P. 35(a). We have reviewed therecord and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Johnson v. United States , Nos. CA-96-477-6; CR-88-266 (S.D.W. Va. Aug. 16, 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