alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# CE2004084EN.01049201.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/492 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/492

---

(2004/C 84 E/0569)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2445/03

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(22 July 2003)

Subject:   Illegal importations of bushmeat

Subject:

Can the Commission report on levels of illegal importation of bushmeat into Member States, indicating recent trends in import volumes; animal meat-source composition; originating source and destination patterns; transportation routes/methods; and detection levels?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(15 September 2003)

(15 September 2003)

The Commission regrets that the information requested by the Honourable Member is not available. Almost by definition, illegal imports rarely appear in the statistics.

The Commission has information on legally imported CITES (1) listed species, as importers are obliged to notify their authorities and to present permits or notifications. However, the import of specimens of CITES-listed species for use as bushmeat is illegal, and importers are not going to reveal that they are breaching the rules.

1

Nor is it possible to extrapolate from the number of confiscations as there is no reliable way of determining what proportion of the commodity is accounted for by confiscated material — contraband which evades the system is never recorded. In the case of bushmeat, there have only been two confiscations since 1999.

---

(1)  Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species.

1

---
# The Agriculture (Miscellaneous Revocations) Regulations 2014

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

Statutory Instruments

# 2014 No. 1902

Agriculture

# The Agriculture (Miscellaneous Revocations) Regulations 2014

Made

15th July 2014

Laid before Parliament

21st July 2014

Coming into force

20th August 2014

The Secretary of State is designated for the purposes of section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972(1) in relation to the common agricultural policy of the European Union(2) and makes these Regulations in exercise of the powers conferred by section 2(2) of that Act.                        

## Citation, commencement and extentU.K.

1.—(1) These Regulations may be cited as the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Revocations) Regulations 2014 and come into force on 20th                     August 2014.                  

(2) The revocations made by regulation 2 and the Schedule have the same extent as the enactments revoked.

## RevocationsU.K.

2.  The Regulations listed in the Schedule are revoked.                  

George Eustice

Parliamentary Under Secretary of State

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

15th July 2014

Regulation 2

## SCHEDULEU.K.Revocations

## EXPLANATORY NOTE

(This note is not part of the Regulations)

This instrument revokes the 11 instruments listed in the Schedule.

An impact assessment has not been produced as no impact, or no significant impact, on the private, voluntary or public sectors                     is foreseen.                  

1

1972 c. 68. Section 2(2) was amended by section 27(1)(a) of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006 (c. 51) and section 3(3) of, and Part 1 of the Schedule to, the European Union (Amendment) Act 2008 (c. 7). In relation to Scotland, section 2(2) was amended by the Scotland Act 1998 (c. 46) (“the 1998 Act”), Schedule 8, paragraph 15(3) (which was amended by section 27(4) of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform                              Act 2006 (c. 51)). The functions conferred upon the Minister of the Crown under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 (“the 1972                              Act”) so far as within devolved competence, were transferred to the Scottish Ministers by virtue of section 53 of the 1998                              Act. Despite this transfer, the Secretary of State retains power to exercise functions under section 2(2) of the 1972 Act                              as regards Scotland by virtue of section 57(1) of the 1998 Act. Under paragraph 5 of Schedule 3 to the Government of Wales                              Act 2006 (c. 32), despite the transfer to the Welsh Ministers of functions in relation to implementing obligations under EU law in relation to devolved matters, the Secretary of State retains power to exercise such functions as regards Wales. The                              Secretary of State’s power, as a Minister so designated, to make regulations which extend to Northern Ireland is confirmed                              by article 3(2) of S.I. 2000/2812.                           

2

S.I. 1972/1811.
# C_2023235EN.01006201.xml

| 3.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 235/62 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/62

---

Action brought on 8 May 2023 — Sky v EUIPO — Skyworks Solutions (SKYWORKS Sky5)

(Case T-246/23)

(2023/C 235/75)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Sky Ltd (Isleworth, United Kingdom) (represented by: A. Zalewska-Orabona, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Skyworks Solutions, Inc. (Wilmington, Delaware, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark SKYWORKS Sky5 — Application for registration No 17 936 585

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 February 2023 in Case R 2461/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and, in case it joins the proceedings, the intervener to bear the costs incurred by the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and, in case it joins the proceedings, the intervener to bear the costs incurred by the applicant.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b), 8(5), 8(2)(c) and 8(4) in conjunction with Article 46(1)(a) and (c) and Article 8(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council insofar as the Board of Appeal found that the earlier UK rights no longer constitute a valid base in inter partes proceedings before the EUIPO; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b), 8(5), 8(2)(c) and 8(4) in conjunction with Article 46(1)(a) and (c) and Article 8(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council insofar as the Board of Appeal found that the earlier UK rights no longer constitute a valid base in inter partes proceedings before the EUIPO;

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council to the extent that the Board of Appeal found that evidence of use, enhanced distinctiveness and/or reputation of the earlier EU marks must be excluded from the opposition proceedings insofar as such evidence related to the UK territory. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council to the extent that the Board of Appeal found that evidence of use, enhanced distinctiveness and/or reputation of the earlier EU marks must be excluded from the opposition proceedings insofar as such evidence related to the UK territory.

---
##### 



EXHIBIT 99.22
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. §1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  /s/ Kevin McArthurKevin McArthurPresident and Chief Executive Officer




---



##### 



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. §1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  /s/ Lindsay Hall

Lindsay HallExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 174 (Friday, September 9, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 53695]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-17899]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

PRESIDIO TRUST


Notice of Receipt of and Availability for Public Comment on an 
Application for Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Site; The 
Presidio of San Francisco, California

AGENCY: The Presidio Trust.

ACTION: Public notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the Presidio Trust's receipt of and 
availability for public comment on an application from New Cingular 
Wireless PCS, LLC for installation of a wireless telecommunications 
facilities site (``Project'') in The Presidio of San Francisco. The 
proposed location of the Project is the south side of the MacArthur 
Tunnel.
    The Project involves (i) installing a 32-foot pole with two sets of 
antennae panels and power and telecommunications panels, (ii) placing 
the associated telecommunications equipment within three cabinets on a 
concrete pad, and (iii) mounting two antennae on the south face of the 
MacArthur Tunnel wall. Power and telecommunications service will be 
brought to the site via underground trench.
    Comments: Comments on the proposed project must be sent to Steve 
Carp, Presidio Trust, 34 Graham Street, P.O. Box 29052, San Francisco, 
CA 94129-0052, and be received by October 12, 2005. A copy of 
Cingular's application is available upon request to the Presidio Trust.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Carp, Presidio Trust, 34 Graham 
Street, P.O. Box 29052, San Francisco, CA 94129-0052. E-mail: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e39080829193a3939186908a878a8c9791969097cd848c95"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3e4d5d5f4c4e7e4e4c5b4d575a57514a4c4b4d4a10595148">[email protected]</span></a>. Telephone: 415-561-5300.

    Dated: September 2, 2005.
Steve Carp,
Legal Analyst.
[FR Doc. 05-17899 Filed 9-8-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-4R-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

      Schedule of Year-To-Date Principal and Interest Distributions
                                  to 
                         Certificate Holders

                                                    Ending
Class     Interest          Principal        Losses Balance
<S>       <C>               <C>              <C>    <C> 
A         4,059,534.95         9,346,804.24   0.00   194,229,195.74
CE        2,695,498.71                 0.80   0.00     3,805,408.00
M1          449,203.84                 0.00   0.00    21,562,000.00
M2          367,256.25                 0.00   0.00    17,123,000.00
M3          172,603.21                 0.00   0.00     7,611,000.00
R1                0.50               100.00   0.00             0.00
R2                0.50               100.00   0.00             0.00
R3                0.50               100.00   0.00             0.00




</TABLE>
STATE of North Carolina v. Brandon Sentell WILSON.

No. COA15-707.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Jan. 5, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

No Error.
Francisco K. AVOKI and Ekoko K. Avoki v. Larry Eugene FEREBEE, Jr., Does I-XX (Unknown), and Intervener Government Employees Insurance Company.

No. 284P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Dec. 15, 2015.

Francisco K. Avoki, for Avoki, Francisco K., et al.

Ekoko K. Avoki.

C. Rob Wilson, Charlotte, Attorney at Law, for Ferebee, Larry Eugene (Jr.), et al.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Plaintiffs on the 10th of August 2015 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Mecklenburg County, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court of that County:

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 15th of December 2015."

ERVIN, J. recused
----

(2004/C 65 E/104)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1794/03

by Claude Moraes (PSE) to the Commission

(28 May 2003)

Subject:   Software patents

In recent research undertaken on the subject (1), it has been argued that a patent system may interfere with competition and innovation. This argument relies on the notion that innovation is both ‘sequential’ (i.e. each invention builds upon its predecessor) and ‘complementary’ (i.e. a diversity of innovators raises the chances of discovery). This argument therefore goes against the traditional reasoning for a patent system.

Does the Commission in any way agree with the argument? How does the Commission respond to it in relation to the Community patent?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(19 June 2003)

The Commission is aware of the research referred to by James Bessen and Eric Maskin. The authors of the paper argue that sequentiality and complementarity are characteristics of industries such as those for computer software and hardware. This may indeed be the case, but in no way does it go ‘against the traditional reasoning’ behind patent systems. In fact, sequentiality and complementarity are, to a greater or lesser extent, characteristics of all innovation, although the degree of interdependence between inventions varies considerably between sectors.

The Commission welcomes all research which contributes to the debate on the scope and utility of patent protection, particularly in high technology sectors. The work by Bessen and Maskin in this field is indeed highly interesting and the model that the authors develop in their paper is undoubtedly elegant and sophisticated. However, like all models of this kind, there are simplifications involved, and caution has to be exercised in applying the results of such work to the real world.

Following an extended period of consultation and reflection, the Commission came to the conclusion that in the field of software inventions, insufficient grounds had been shown to justify either a significant extension, or restriction, of the scope of what should be regarded as patentable. In particular, there was little hard evidence of the interfering effect which patents are alleged by some to have on innovation. This is why the proposal for a directive on computer-implemented inventions involves harmonisation and clarification of certain aspects of the law, but is based substantially on current practice. The proposed directive does, however, include a provision for the Commission to report on any effects the directive may have on innovation, competition and business.

As regards the Community Patent, the objective of this initiative is to create a Community-wide unitary right granted by the European Patent Office and enforced within a single Community jurisdiction. It is however not the intention in this context to modify the substantive conditions for patentability as they are currently expressed in the European Patent Convention and the national patent laws of the Member States.

----

(1)  Sequential Innovation, Patents, and Imitation, by James Bessen and Eric Maskin, July 2002, Harvard University and MIT.

----
STATE of North Carolina v. Quintel AUGUSTINE, Tilmon Golphin, and Christina Walters.

No. 139PA13.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Dec. 18, 2015.

*ORDER*

The trial court granted respondents' motions for appropriate relief under the Racial Justice Act, N.C.G.S. §§ 15A-2010 to -2012 (2009) and N.C.G.S. §§ 15A-2010 to -2012 (2011 & Supp.2012). After careful review, we conclude that the error recognized in this Court's Order in *State v. Robinson,* --- N.C. ----, 780 S.E.2d 151, 2015 WL 9257700 (2015) (411A94-5), infected the trial court's decision, including its use of issue preclusion, in these cases. Accordingly, the trial court's order is vacated. Furthermore, the trial court erred when it joined these three cases for an evidentiary hearing. These cases are therefore remanded to the senior resident superior court judge of Cumberland County for reconsideration of respondents' motions for appropriate relief. *Cf.* Gen. R. Pract. Super. & Dist. Cts. 25(4), 2016 Ann. R. N.C. 22.

We express no opinion on the merits of respondents' motions for appropriate relief at this juncture. On remand, the trial court should address petitioner's constitutional and statutory challenges pertaining to the Act. In any new hearings on the merits, the trial court may, in the interest of justice, consider additional statistical studies presented by the parties. The trial court may also, in its discretion, appoint an expert under N.C. R. Evid. 706 to conduct a quantitative and qualitative study, unless such a study has already been commissioned pursuant to this Court's Order in *Robinson,* in which case the trial court may consider that study. If the trial *553court appoints an expert under Rule 706, the Court hereby orders the Administrative Office of the Courts to make funds available for that purpose.

Justice BEASLEY and Justice ERVIN did not participate in the consideration or decision of these cases.
IN RE T.L.

No. COA08-993.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed February 3, 2009.

Certification Date February 23, 2009.

Appeal from Robeson (99JA330).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed in part, Vacated in part, and remanded for further findings.
STATE of North Carolina v. Charles Shannon HARRISON.

No. 178P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Sept. 24, 2015.

Benjamin Dowling-Sendor, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Harrison, Charles Shannon.

Thomas O. Lawton, III, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

James C. Gaither, Jr., District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 26th of May 2015 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 24th of September 2015."
STATE v. GREEN.

No. COA07-1379.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed July 15, 2008.

Certification Date August 4, 2008.

Appeal from Wake (06CRS39839, 06CRS39840, 06CRS43939, 06CRS43940).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
# CE2004065EN.01004201.xml

| 13.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 65/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 65/42

---

(2004/C 65 E/041)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0687/03

by Joan Vallvé (ELDR) and Carles-Alfred Gasòliba i Böhm (ELDR) to the Commission

(7 March 2003)

Subject:   Measures to safeguard EU-grown walnuts

Subject:

Catalan annual whole walnut production averages between 20 000 and 25 000 tonnes, which, if compared with the annual 600 000 tonnes produced in Turkey, is a relatively small figure.

The EU Association Agreement signed with Turkey in 1998 committed Turkey to refraining from putting the total quantity of walnuts available after each harvest on the EU market forthwith. This guaranteed a price of between ESP 500 and ESP 600 per kilogram of whole walnuts between 1998 and 2001.

The devaluation of the Turkish lira in 2001 induced Turkey not to hold back part of its walnut production, but to increase exports. Increased exports to the EU have caused prices to fall.

We are aware that the Spanish Government has requested the Commission to apply safeguard measures for walnuts, as provided for by Article 7 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 (1) establishing the common organisation of the market in fruit and vegetables. Various months have now elapsed.

1

Does the Commission intend to introduce safeguard measures for EU-produced walnuts, which are suffering from extreme prejudice thanks to the increased imports of walnuts from Turkey?

When will these measures be introduced?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(15 April 2003)

(15 April 2003)

The examination and evaluation of the Spanish official request for implementation of safeguard measures on hazelnuts originating in Turkey, as well as the analysis of the supporting statistical dossier, are in progress.

Due to the complexity of the dossier and the need to respect the obligations that stem from the international agreements signed by the Union (Article 37,4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 of 28 October 1996 on the common organisation of the market in fruit and vegetables), the Commission has carried out consultations with the Turkish authorities, and a series of contacts with different Community operators in the hazelnut sector.

On the basis of the information provided until now by the Spanish authorities, the statistical data currently available, and taking into account the results of the consultations previously mentioned, the Commission has elaborated an exhaustive file on the subject. Nevertheless, it cannot be excluded that, following the examination of this file, it may be deemed necessary to request additional information from the Spanish authorities.

Following the completion of this assessment, the Commission will decide whether measures need to be taken on the matter at issue to avoid the objectives of Article 33 of the EC Treaty being put at risk.

---

(1)  OJ L 297, 21.11.1996, p. 1.

1

---
TWAN BEY (Antwan L. Burns) v. CUMBERLAND COUNTY DISTRICT COURT, Robert J. Stiehl.

No. 201P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Aug. 20, 2015.

Twan (Antwan L. Burns) Bey, for Bey, Twan (Antwan L. Burns).

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Petitioner on the 16th of June 2015 in this matter for a writ of mandamus, the following *850order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Cumberland County:

> "Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of August 2015."
**Exhibit 32.2**

**SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION**

In connection with the Annual Report of enherent Corp. (the“Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Arunava De, VP of Finance of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, adopted as pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

(1) TheReport 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. 

 

March 30, 2009 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting, the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this writtenstatement required by Section 906, has been provided to enherent, Corp. and will be retained by enherent Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.