alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Political and Security Committee Decision (CFSP) 2015/67 (EUCAP Sahel Mali/1/2015)Show full title

Political and Security Committee Decision (CFSP) 2015/67 (EUCAP Sahel Mali/1/2015) of 14 January 2015 extending the mandate            of the Head of Mission of the European Union CSDP mission in Mali (EUCAP Sahel Mali)         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Political and Security Committee Decision (CFSP) 2015/67 (EUCAP Sahel Mali/1/2015)                     

# of 14 January 2015

# extending the mandate of the Head of Mission of the European Union CSDP mission in Mali (EUCAP Sahel Mali)

THE POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE,

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

Having regard to Council Decision 2014/219/CFSP of 15 April 2014 on the European Union CSDP mission in Mali (EUCAP Sahel Mali)(1), and in particular Article 7(1) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Pursuant to Decision 2014/219/CFSP, the Political and Security Committee (PSC) is authorised, in accordance with Article 38                              of the Treaty, to take the relevant decisions for the purpose of exercising political control and strategic direction of the                              EUCAP Sahel Mali mission, including the decision to appoint a Head of Mission.

(2)On 26 May 2014, the PSC adopted Decision EUCAP Sahel Mali/1/2014(2), appointing Mr Albrecht CONZE as Head of Mission of EUCAP Sahel Mali from 26 May 2014 to 14 January 2015.

(3)The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy has proposed to extend the mandate of Mr Albrecht                              CONZE as Head of Mission of EUCAP Sahel Mali from 15 January 2015 to 14 June 2015,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

# Article 1U.K.

The mandate of Mr Albrecht CONZE as Head of Mission of EUCAP Sahel Mali is hereby extended until 14 June 2015.

# Article 2U.K.

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

Done at Brussels, 14 January 2015.

*For the Political and Security Committee*                            

*The Chairperson*                            

W. Stevens                            

1

OJ L 113, 16.4.2014, p. 21.                           

2

Political and Security Committee Decision EUCAP Sahel Mali/1/2014 of 26 May 2014 on the appointment of the Head of Mission                              of the European Union CSDP mission in Mali (EUCAP Sahel Mali) (OJ L 164, 3.6.2014, p. 43).
# CE2004078EN.01045101.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/451 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/451

---

(2004/C 78 E/0475)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3265/03

by Maria Sanders-ten Holte (ELDR) to the Commission

(29 October 2003)

Subject:   Info-Points and Carrefours

Subject:

In its resolution of 13 March 2002 Parliament called on the European institutions to step up and improve support for the existing information networks, including the Info-Points and Carrefours. On 10 April 2003, in a follow-up resolution, Parliament drew attention to the need for extra efforts to be made in 2004 in the area of communication and information about European policies.

The Info-Points and Carrefours are the information centres which are closest to hand for the general public. In view of the elections, the enlargement and the adoption of the new European Constitution, all of which are set to take place in 2004, it is essential that these centres should be working flat out. However, the Commission has decided to abolish the operating subsidies for these centres as from 1 January 2004.

Can the Commission state why the annual operating subsidies for the Info-Points and Carrefours are being discontinued as from 1 January 2004?

Can the Commission give valid reasons for taking this step at such short notice?

Has the Commission made provision for transitional arrangements to help the Info-Points and Carrefours cope with 2004, which will be a difficult year?

When does the Commission plan to put forward practical proposals regarding support for the information centres in the future?

---
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 12

- 00519

- CV

JENA GONZALEZ v. SOUTH TEXAS VETERINARY ASSOCIATES, INC.

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5 of Nueces County , Texas Trial Cause No. 2011

- CCV

- 61850

- 5

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes the judgment of the trial court should be reversed and the cause remanded to the trial court . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with its opinion . Costs of the appeal are adjudged against appell ee

. We further order this decision certified below for observance. December 19, 2013
The Honorable Charles B. Kornmann, United States District 1

Judge for the District of South Dakota. 

___________

No. 95-4228

___________

United States of America, *

 *

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

 * District Court for the

v. * District of South Dakota.

 *

Marion His Law, also known as * [PUBLISHED]

Charlie Boy His Law, *

 *

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: April 4, 1996

 Filed: June 5, 1996

___________

Before BEAM, LOKEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Marion His Law challenges the sentence the district court imposed

1

after he pleaded guilty to distributing and possessing with intent to

distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841. The government

argues the appeal should be dismissed because His Law agreed in the plea

agreement to waive his right to appeal, or challenge via post-conviction

writs of habeas corpus or coram nobis, the district court's entry of

judgment and imposition of sentence. We construe this as a promise on His

Law's part not to appeal his sentence. We have held that a promise made

in a plea agreement is binding on the government and may be specifically

enforced by a defendant. United States v. Kelly, 18 F.3d 612,
-2-

615-16 (8th Cir. 1994). We conclude that this principle applies with equal

force against defendants and therefore against His Law in this case.

We therefore specifically enforce His Law's promise against him by

dismissing his appeal.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
# CE2004070EN.01018702.xml

| 20.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 70/187 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 70/187

---

(2004/C 70 E/197)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2999/03

by Olivier Duhamel (PSE) to the Commission

(14 October 2003)

Subject:   Information brochure

Subject:

The Commission has recently published an information brochure entitled ‘Panorama of the European Union’. Curiously to relate, this brief history of the European Union makes judicious reference to Robert Schuman and the 9 May 1950 speech from which today's Union grew, but it includes no mention of Jean Monnet. All those involved at the time, and all historical research into the subject, show that Monnet was the ‘inspirer’ of the Schuman Declaration.

How does the Commission explain this oversight? Does it agree that a word in tribute to the original courage of the one in no way diminishes the courage of the other?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(3 November 2003)

(3 November 2003)

The Honourable Member is right to emphasise that any publication, however short, on the historical origins of the Community should not pass over the name of Jean Monnet and the part he played in inspiring Robert Schuman. This omission will be corrected in the online version (1) of the brochure Panorama of the European Union immediately, and in the next printed edition.

1

---

(1)  http://europa.eu.int/comm/publications/booklets/eu_glance/20/index_fr.htm

1

---
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-08-00484-CV

In re Raul Pacheco and Israel Pacheco, as Guardian of the Estate of Raul Pacheco

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM TRAVIS COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

The petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).

___________________________________________

Diane M. Henson, Justice

Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Pemberton and Henson

Filed: August 15, 2008
EXHIBIT 21

                             LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
SUBSIDIARY                                            STATE OF INCORPORATION
<S>                                                   <C>
Subsidiary of BPC Holding
   Berry Plastics Corporation                 Delaware

SUBSIDIARIES OF BERRY PLASTICS CORPORATION
   Berry Iowa Corporation                     Delaware
   Berry Sterling Corporation                 Delaware
   Berry Tri-Plas Corporation                 Delaware
   AeroCon, Inc.                              Delaware
   PackerWare Corporation                       Kansas
   Berry Design Corporation                   Delaware
   Venture Packaging, Inc.                    Delaware
   Venture Packaging Midwest, Inc.                Ohio
   Venture Packaging Southeast, Inc.   South  Carolina
</TABLE>
# C_2009019EN.01003601.xml

| 24.1.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 19/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.1.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 19/36

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 19 November 2008 — UPC v Commission

(Case T-367/05) (1)

1

(2009/C 19/68)

Language of the case: French

Language of the case: French

The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 315, 10.12.2005.

1

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-6324

DENNIS KEITH SMITH, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

SGT. ROGERS, Hampton Roads Regional Jail; LT. JONES, Hampton Roads 

Regional Jail; COL. VERGAKIS, Hampton Roads Regional Jail; NURSE 

WERMTER, Well Path Medical Services; WELL PATH MEDICAL SERVICES; 

HAMPTON ROADS REGIONAL JAIL,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Norfolk. Jamar Kentrell Walker, District Judge. (2:23-cv-00248-JKW-RJK)

Submitted: September 12, 2024 Decided: September 16, 2024

Before THACKER and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dennis Keith Smith, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6324 Doc: 9 Filed: 09/16/2024 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Virginia inmate Dennis Keith Smith, Jr., appeals the district court’s order dismissing 

without prejudice Smith’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Upon initial review of Smith’s 

complaint, the court was unable to determine whether Smith had stated cognizable claims 

against each Defendant individually. The court therefore ordered Smith to amend his 

complaint with particularized allegations within 21 days and warned him that, if he failed 

do so, the court would dismiss the action without prejudice. Sixty-one days later, with no 

response from Smith, the court dismissed the action without prejudice. Smith appealed. 

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. The court warned Smith 

of the consequences of failing to amend his complaint. Further, the dismissal without 

prejudice permits Smith to refile. Finally, Smith’s informal brief does not challenge the 

basis for the court’s dismissal. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Accordingly, we affirm the district 

court’s order. Smith v. Rogers, No. 2:23-cv-00248-JKW-RJK (E.D. Va. Mar. 19, 2024). 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6324 Doc: 9 Filed: 09/16/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
STATE of North Carolina v. Edwin JIMENEZ.

No. COA14-1294.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Sept. 15, 2015.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

No Prejudicial Error.
RIBELIN v. CREEL.

No. 112A15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Jan. 27, 2016.

Robert L. Inge, Salisbury, for Creel, Phillip Ray.

Phillip Creel, for Creel, Phillip Ray.

Arlaine Rockey, Marshall, for Ribelin, Dana Marie (fka Creel).

Kip David Nelson, Greensboro, for Creel, Phillip Ray.

*471The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 21st of January 2016 by Plaintiff for Leave to File Reply Brief:

> "Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 27th of January 2016."
# CE2004070EN.01016201.xml

| 20.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 70/162 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 70/162

---

(2004/C 70 E/170)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2906/03

by Gerhard Schmid (PSE) to the Commission

(1 October 2003)

Subject:   Transposition of Directive 2001/97/EC on prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering

Subject:

Directive 2001/97/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Directive 91/308/EEC (2) on prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering came into force on 4 December 2001. The deadline for transposition by Member States was 15 June 2003.

1

2

I understand that the directive has not yet been transposed in the United Kingdom.

Can the Commission therefore say:

| 1. | On what grounds the United Kingdom has not yet transposed the directive? |
| --- | --- |

1.

On what grounds the United Kingdom has not yet transposed the directive?

| 2. | What other Member States have not yet transposed the directive? |
| --- | --- |

2.

What other Member States have not yet transposed the directive?

| 3. | What prospective Member States have not yet transposed the directive? |
| --- | --- |

3.

What prospective Member States have not yet transposed the directive?

| 4. | What it intends to do about this, especially in the case of the United Kingdom? |
| --- | --- |

4.

What it intends to do about this, especially in the case of the United Kingdom?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(12 November 2003)

(12 November 2003)

With regard to the first question, the Commission can inform the Honourable Member that on 16 July 2003 a letter of formal notice was sent to the United Kingdom on grounds that the United Kingdom had failed to transpose the provisions of Directive 2001/97/EC (‘the Directive’) by 15 June 2003, the deadline for compliance set out in Article 3 of the Directive. No response to the letter of formal notice has so far been received.

Regarding the second question, the Commission can inform the Honourable Member that (besides the United Kingdom) Belgium, Greece, France, Italy, Luxembourg and Portugal have not communicated implementing measures to the Commission and — as far as the Commission is aware — have not yet transposed the Directive into national law. Austria has communicated measures which constitute a partial implementation of the Directive.

Regarding the third question, it should be noted that the accession countries have until the date of accession to complete their implementation.

Regarding the fourth question, the Commission can ensure the Honourable Member that if the United Kingdom or any other Member States should persist in delaying implementation of the Directive; the Commission will pursue the infringement proceedings commenced. This being said, however, the Commission will take into consideration any information transmitted in the meantime by the Member States which have failed to transpose the Directive.

---

(1)  OJ L 344, 28.12.2001, p. 76.

1

(2)  OJ L 166, 28.6.1991, p. 77.

2

---
Exhibit 10.3

EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

THIS
EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") effective November 1, 2002 by and betweenenherent Corp. (fka PRT Group Inc.),a
Delaware corporation, with its principal place of business at 12300 Ford Rd., Suite 450, Dallas, Texas, 75234, with all of its direct and indirect subsidiaries, (the "Employer") and George Warman, an
individual residing at 2816 Bitterroot Court, Plano, TX 75025 (the "Executive").

RECITALS:

AGREEMENT:

Therefore, in consideration of the premises, mutual covenants and agreements of the parties contained herein, and other good and valuable consideration, the
receipt and adequacy of which is hereby acknowledged, Employer and the Executive hereby agree as follows:

---

---



5.Expense Reimbursement and Other Benefits.



---



6.Restrictions



---



---



7.Disability.

If
during the Term Executive is unable to perform his services by reason of illness or incapacity, for a period of sixty (60) consecutive days or three (3) months out of any six
(6) month period. Employer may, at its option, upon written notice to Executive, terminate the Term and his employment hereunder. In the event of disability of the Executive as defined in this
Section 7, employer shall continue to pay seventy-five percent (75%) of Executive's then current salary and benefits for the lesser of eight (8) months or the remainder of
the Term.

8.Termination for Cause.



9.Termination Without Cause.





---



10.Termination by Executive.



---



11.Waivers.



12.Savings Provisions.



13.Governing Law.





| |  | If to Employer:  |  | enherent Corp.
80 Lamberton Road
Windsor, CT 06095
Attention: Cliff Dickman      
| |  | ---------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |  | If to Executive: |  | At the most recent home address of
Executive on the official records of
Employer.

15.Default.



16.No Third Party Beneficiary.



---

17.Waiver of Jury Trial.



18.Successors.



19.Indemnification.



20.Press Releases.



IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, by its appropriate officer, signed this Agreement and Executive has signed this Agreement, as or the day and year first above written.

|AGREED TO BY:            |  | AGREED TO BY:                           
|------------------------ |  | ----------------------------------------
|Executive: George Warman |  | enherent Corp.
Robert D. Merkl
President
|By:                      |  | By:                                     
|Date:                    |  | Date:                                   

---

QuickLinks
In the Matter of D.D. A.

No. COA14-366.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

March 1, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Vacated.
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 168 (Wednesday, August 31, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 51841]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-17330]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service


Marine Mammal Annual Report Availability, Combined Calendar Years 
1999 and 2000

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Biological 
Resources Discipline of the U.S. Geological Survey, have issued our 
combined Calendar Years 1999 and 2000 annual report on marine mammals 
under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of the Interior, as 
required by section 103(f) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972. 
Our report covers the periods of January 1 to December 31, 1999, and 
January 1 to December 31, 2000. We submitted the report to Congress on 
September 7, 2004. By this notice, we are informing you, the public, 
that the report is available and that copies may be obtained on request 
to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

ADDRESSES: You should submit written requests for copies to: 
Publications Unit, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National 
Conservation Training Center, Route 1, Box 166, Shepherd Grade Road, 
Shepherdstown, WV 25443. You may also contact that office by telephone 
at 1-800-344-WILD (9453).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Diane Bowen, Division of Habitat and 
Resource Conservation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Arlington, 
Virginia, at telephone 703-358-2161.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The U.S. Department of the Interior is 
responsible for eight species of marine mammals, as assigned by the 
Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et 
seq.). These species are polar bear, sea and marine otters, walrus, 
three species of manatee, and dugong. Administrative actions discussed 
in our report include appropriations, status reports, research 
activities, scientific research and public display permits, 
international activities, law enforcement actions, and outer 
continental shelf operations and environmental studies.

    Dated: July 25, 2005.
Mamie Parker,
Assistant Director, Fisheries and Habitat Conservation.
[FR Doc. 05-17330 Filed 8-30-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-U
In the Matter of I.S. and D.S.

No. COA15-502.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Oct. 20, 2015.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Affirmed.
# C_2009282EN.01003701.xml

| 21.11.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 282/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.11.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/37

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 2 October 2009 — Cyprus v Commission

(Joined Cases T-300/05 and T-316/05) (1)

1

(Agriculture - Common organisation of the markets - Transitional measures to be adopted by reason of the accession of new Member States - Regulation (EC) No 651/2005 laying down transitional measures in the sugar sector - Action for annulment - Period within which proceedings must be commenced - Point from which time starts to run - Delay - Amendment of a provision of a regulation - Reopening of the action against that provision and all provisions forming a body of rules with it - Inadmissibility - Regulation (EC) No 832/2005 on the determination of surplus quantities of sugar, isoglucose and fructose - Plea of illegality - Jurisdiction - Principle of non-discrimination - Legitimate expectations - Action for annulment - Proportionality - Statement of reasons - Non-retroactivity - Collegiality)

2009/C 282/68

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Cyprus (represented by: P. Kliridis, K. Lykourgos and A. Pantazi-Lamprou, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: initially L. Visaggio and H. Tserepa-Lacombe and subsequently by T. van Rijn and H. Tserepa-Lacombe, Agents)

Defendant:

Interveners in support of the applicant: Republic of Estonia (Case T-316/05) (represented by: L. Uibo, Agent); and Republic of Latvia (represented by: E. Balode-Buraka, Agent)

Interveners in support of the applicant:

Re:

Re

In Case T-300/05, application for annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 651/2005 of 28 April 2005 amending Regulation (EC) No 60/2004 laying down transitional measures in the sugar sector by reason of the accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia (OJ 2005 L 108, p. 3) and, in Case T-316/05, application for annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 832/2005 of 31 May 2005 on the determination of surplus quantities of sugar, isoglucose and fructose for the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia (OJ 2005 L 138, p. 3)

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the actions; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the actions;

| 2. | Orders the Republic of Cyprus to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Republic of Cyprus to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission;

| 3. | Orders the Republic of Estonia and the Republic of Latvia to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Republic of Estonia and the Republic of Latvia to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 271, of 29.10.2005.

1

---