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

(2004/C 33 E/277)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2505/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(29 July 2003)

Subject:   Procedure 2001/2151 instituted against Italy under Article 226 of the Treaty for infringement of Directive 89/552/EEC (Television without Frontiers)

Knowing that:

The Commission:

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(1 September 2003)

The infringement procedure the Honourable Member refers to was based on a monitoring conducted by the Commission in 1999. The results of the monitoring raised serious doubts whether the Italian authorities were sufficiently supervising the application of legislation implementing Chapter IV of the Television without frontiers Directive (3). The Italian authorities argued that the monitoring period coincided with the transitional stage when the powers were transferred from the broadcasting and publishing standards board and the Ministry of Communications to the newly established authority and that the situation had considerably improved since then.

The Commission asked for additional information concerning the improvement made in monitoring of the rules on advertising and the reply of the Italian authorities of 21 May 2003 provided satisfactory answers to its questions. Staff allocated to this task had increased from 2000 to 2002 of about 30 % (4,5 to 6 full time). Financial resources have been doubled in the same period (EUR 61 000 to EUR 122 000). As far as the number of proceedings is concerned the Italian authorities reported that 198 proceedings against broadcasters were initiated in 1999 and 497 in 2000. According to information available a recent High Court ruling has simplified the current procedure and therefore makes it easier for the Media Safeguards Authority to impose effective sanctions.

With a view to the essentially enhanced situation concerning the application of the Directive the Commission on 9 July 2003, decided to terminate this case. This does not exclude that the Commission might start or continue with infringement procedures that concern specific, advertising practices in Italy.

----

(1)OJ L 298, 7.10.1989, p. 23.

(2)OJ L 202, 30.7.1997, p. 60.

(3)  Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by Law, Regulation or Administrative Action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities, as amended by Directive 97/36/EC of the Parliament and the Council of 30 June 1997.

----
STATE of North Carolina v. Danny Ray BREDGES.

No. 415A08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

February 5, 2009.

Michael E. Casterline, Asheville, for Bridges.

Donna Wojcik, Assistant Attorney General, Jeff Hunt, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*662*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by the Defendant on the 9th day of September 2008 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30, and the motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question filed by the State of NC, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the motion to dismiss the appeal is

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th day of February 2009."
##### 



Exhibit 32.2 Written Statement of the Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. §1350, I, the undersigned Executive Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer of LaCrosse Footwear Inc. (the Company), hereby certify,
based on my knowledge, that the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended
December 31, 2004 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. /s/ David P. CarlsonDavid P. CarlsonMarch 25, 2005
STATE v. Christopher Lee KING.

No. 229P15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Aug. 24, 2015.

Mr. M. Gordon Widenhouse, Jr., Chapel Hill, for King, Christopher Lee.

June S. Ferrell, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Gary W. Frank, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 7th of July 2015 by Defendant for Temporary Stay:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                               0
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                        38094127
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                   33605440
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                       17451881
<ALLOWANCE>                                      30000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                92566303
<DEPOSITS>                                    65746848
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             443906
<LONG-TERM>                                   15000000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          8565
<OTHER-SE>                                    11366984
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                92566303
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 960769
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              2863678
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                871756
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               4696203
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             2495957
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             3124292
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          1571911
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                           (5985841)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 666071
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (5054692)
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (3364812)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (4.82)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (4.82)
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                       0
<LOANS-NON>                                     156000
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 30000
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                30000
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             30000
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          30000


</TABLE>
Dana Marie RIBELIN (f/k/a Creel) v. Phillip Ray CREEL.

No. 112A15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 15, 2016.

Arlaine Rockey, Marshall, for plaintiff-appellant.

Kip D. Nelson, Greensboro, for defendant-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

As to the appeal of right based on the dissenting opinion, we affirm the majority decision of the Court of Appeals. We conclude that the petition for discretionary review as to additional issues was improvidently allowed.

AFFIRMED IN PART; DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IMPROVIDENTLY ALLOWED.
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 750 

To authorize to be appropriated $1,800,000 for fiscal year 2008 to acquire 

real property and carry out a military construction project at Kirtland 

Air Force Base, New Mexico. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 2, 2007 

Mr. DOMENICI (for himself and Mr. BINGAMAN) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To authorize to be appropriated $1,800,000 for fiscal year 

2008 to acquire real property and carry out a military 

construction project at Kirtland Air Force Base, New 

Mexico. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. AUTHORITY TO CARRY OUT MILITARY CON4 STRUCTION PROJECT AT KIRTLAND AIR 

5 FORCE BASE, NEW MEXICO. 

6 (a) AUTHORITY.—Using amounts appropriated pur7 suant to the authorization of appropriations under sub8 section (b), the Secretary of the Air Force may acquire 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
2 

•S 750 IS

1 real property and carry out a military construction project 

2 at Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico, as specified 

3 under such subsection. 

4 (b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is 

5 authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 2008 for mili6 tary construction and land acquisition for the Department 

7 of the Air Force for the replacement of a fuel unloading 

8 facility at Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico, 

9 $1,800,000. 

Æ 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
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.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis Panel, HIV Vaccine Research and Design, (HIVRAD).                     

*Date:*                         February 15-17, 2005.                    

*Time:*                         8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         Chevy Chase Holiday Inn, 5520 Wisconsin Avenue, Chevy Chase, MD 20815.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Eleazar Cohen, PhD,  Scientific Review Administrator, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities, NIAID/NIH/DHHS, Room 3129, 6700 B Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301 435-3564,                         *ec17w@nih.gov.*

This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research,  National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: January 25, 2005.

LaVerne Y. Stringfield,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 05-1825  Filed 1-31-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
# Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/1838Show full title

Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/1838 of 12 October 2015 amending Decision 2013/391/CFSP in support of the practical implementation            of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1540 (2004) on non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means            of delivery         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/1838                     

# of 12 October 2015

# amending Decision 2013/391/CFSP in support of the practical implementation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1540                        (2004) on non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery                     

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Articles 28(1) and 31(1) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,

Whereas:

(1)On 22 July 2013, the Council adopted Decision 2013/391/CFSP(1).

(2)Decision 2013/391/CFSP sets out for projects referred to therein (‘the projects’) an implementation period of 24 months from                              the date of the conclusion of a financing agreement between the Commission and the UN Secretariat (Office for Disarmament                              Affairs).

(3)On 4 June 2015, the implementing agency, namely the UN Office for Disarmament Affairs (UNODA), requested the authorisation                              of the Union for the extension of the implementation period until 25 April 2016 in order to allow for the continuation of                              the implementation of the projects beyond the initial expiry date.

(4)In its request of 4 June 2015, UNODA stated that the continuation of the projects could be performed without any resource                              implication.

(5)Decision 2013/391/CFSP should therefore be extended to allow for the full implementation of the projects,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

# Article 1U.K.

Decision 2013/391/CFSP is hereby amended as follows:

in Article 5, paragraph 2 is replaced by the following:

‘2.This Decision shall expire on 25 April 2016.’;                           

in the Annex, point 6 is replaced by the following:

## ‘6.DURATION

This Decision will expire on 25 April 2016.’.                           

# Article 2U.K.

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

Done at Luxembourg, 12 October 2015.

*For the Council*                            

*The President*                            

F. Mogherini                            

1

Council Decision 2013/391/CFSP of 22 July 2013 in support of the practical implementation of United Nations Security Council                              Resolution 1540 (2004) on non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery (OJ L 198, 23.7.2013, p. 40).
Kenneth D. BOBBITT v. Danny SAFRIT, Administrator, Alexander Correctional Institution Roy A. Cooper, III, Attorney General, State of North Carolina.

No. 667PA03-5.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Nov. 5, 2015.

Kimberly N. Callahan, Assistant Attorney General, for State of NC.

Staples Hughes, Durham, for Bobbitt, Kenneth D.

Patrick Nadolski, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by State of NC on the 17th of October 2014 for Writ of Supersedeas of the judgment of the Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

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

Upon consideration of the petition filed by State of NC on the 17th of October 2014 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:

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

Therefore the case is docketed as of the date of this order's certification. Briefs of the respective parties shall be submitted to this Court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 15(g)(2).
HART, et al. v. STATE, et al.

No. 372A14-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

July 23, 2015.

Richard D. Komer, Bert Gall, John E. Branch, III, Paul E. Smith, Raleigh, Narendra Ghosh, Chapel Hill, Christine Bischoff, Carlene M. McNulty, for Cynthia Perry and Gennell Curry.

Renee Flaherty.

Burton Craige, Raleigh, for Hart, et al.

Noah H. Huffstetler, III, Raleigh, Stephen Martin, Charlotte, for Moore, Tim, et al.

Lauren M. Clemmons, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of North Carolina, et al.

Robert F. Orr, Asheville, for Richardson, et al.

Laura E. Crumpler, Assistant Attorney General, Tiffany Y. Lucas, Assistant Attorney General, for N.C. State Board of Education.

*834Deborah J. Dewart, Swansboro, Kimberlee Wood Colby, Thomas C. Berg, for Christian Legal Society, et al.

Richard A. Vinroot, Matthew F. Tilley, Charlotte, for Pacific Legal Foundation.

Christopher A. Brook, Raleigh, Legal Director, for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, et al.

Jane Wettach, for Ladd, Helen F., et al.

Mark Dorosin, Elizabeth M. Haddix, Pittsboro, for NC NAACP.

S. Luke Largess, Charlotte, Philip A. Hostak, for National Education Association.

**Opinion**

The Defendant-Intervenors' Motion for Supplemental Relief Pursuant to this Court's Writ of Supersedeas is allowed. This Court's 12 December 2014 Order is modified to allow the North Carolina State Education Assistance Authority to release and disburse the funds pursuant to the statutory schedule for the 2015-16 academic year.

> "By special order of the Court in conference, this the 23rd of July 2015."
<PAGE>

                                   Exhibit 23

                         Consent of Independent Auditors

         We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
         Statements on

           (i)    Form S-3 No. 333-91797
           (ii)   Form S-8 No. 333-81061
           (iii)  Form S-8 No. 333-71619
           (iv)   Form S-8 No. 333-71621
           (v)    Form S-3 No. 333-75839

of our report dated April 12, 2002, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements of U.S. Vision, Inc., included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for
the year ended January 31, 2002.

                                                           /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

April 29, 2002
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jefri Urtado, Appellant.

[804 NYS2d 2]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Berk-man, J), rendered October 11, 2002, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of tampering with physical evidence, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 2 to 4 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence *(see People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490 [1987]). Defendant’s behavior after a shooting incident in which the car he was driving was damaged by gunfire warranted the conclusion that defendant intended to prevent the use of his car in an official proceeding *(see*Penal Law § 215.40 [2]), and did not intend simply to repair the car or hide the damage from his aunt, the car’s lessee.

Defendant’s statement to a detective, made after the attachment of the right to counsel, should have been suppressed since the detective’s question constituted interrogation. However, admission of that statement at trial was harmless, as it had nothing to do with the sole count upon which defendant was convicted and could not have affected the verdict on that count *(see e.g. People v Bynum,*275 AD2d 251, 252 [2000], *lv denied*95 NY2d 961 [2000]). Concur—Friedman, J.P., Sullivan, Nardelli, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.
# CE2004084EN.01005302.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/53

---

(2004/C 84 E/0060)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3127/03

by Jean Lambert (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(23 October 2003)

Subject:   Bank accounts and freedom of movement

Subject:

Is the Commission aware of the tensions that arise between regulations concerning prevention of money laundering and freedom of movement of EU nationals?

It has come to my attention that EU nationals trying to set up a bank account in the UK are finding it extremely difficult, if not impossible, due to the identification documents required. They are often unable to get a UK bank account because they have no permanent address, and thus no utility bills, and unable to get a permanent address because they have no bank reference. These rules amount to a hidden barrier to the free employment of EU citizens in the UK.

Is there any action the Commission can recommend to assist those facing such difficulties?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(21 November 2003)

(21 November 2003)

The Commission is aware of a number of cases where Union nationals who are not resident in the United Kingdom have experienced difficulties in opening a bank account.

Article 3(1) of the anti-money laundering Directive (1) stipulates that banks should identify their customers on the basis of ‘supporting evidence’.

1

United Kingdom banks are, therefore, obliged under the Directive to know their customer and apply proper customer due diligence procedures. Banks are increasingly punctilious about customer identification as failure to carry out proper anti-money laundering controls can have extremely serious consequences for them. There is, however, no requirement in United Kingdom law that prevents a bank from opening an account for a non-resident customer or a customer who is in the process of changing his country of residence.

United Kingdom banks follow or should follow the Guidance Notes issued by the Joint Money Laundering Steering Group. These set out the recommended procedures to be followed for various account opening situations. The fact that a person arriving to take up residence in the United Kingdom does not yet have a permanent address in the United Kingdom should not preclude the opening of a bank account. The Commission would recommend that persons encountering difficulties in opening an account should make reference to the Guidance Notes.

It must be noted, however, that freedom of contract applies in this area in the United Kingdom and a bank cannot be obliged to establish contractual relations with a customer if it does not wish to do so.

---

(1)  Council Directive 91/308/EEC of 10 June 1991 on prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering, OJ L 166, 28.6.1991 as amended by Directive 2001/97/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 4 December 2001, OJ L 344, 28.12.2001.

1

---