alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# CE2004088EN.01045901.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/459 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/459

---

(2004/C 88 E/0471)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3277/03

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(5 November 2003)

Subject:   New relations with Libya

Subject:

The lifting of the embargo against Libya, imposed as a result of its mistaken support for terrorism, should present the European Union with the possibility of establishing new relations with that country that reflect, among other things, the Mediterranean policy that the European Parliament has for several years been hoping for in its regard.

In this connection:

| 1. | Could the Commission indicate whether it has already taken steps to tailor relations with Libya towards a Mediterranean policy? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Could the Commission indicate whether it has already taken steps to tailor relations with Libya towards a Mediterranean policy?

| 2. | In the context of possible discussions on the economy and trade, does it intend to tackle the issue of compensation for the assets confiscated from the 20 000 Italians expelled by the Libyan regime in the past, and for the companies from Italy and other European countries who are still waiting for the Libyan Government to pay the balance of their fees along with any eventual damages? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In the context of possible discussions on the economy and trade, does it intend to tackle the issue of compensation for the assets confiscated from the 20 000 Italians expelled by the Libyan regime in the past, and for the companies from Italy and other European countries who are still waiting for the Libyan Government to pay the balance of their fees along with any eventual damages?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(1 December 2003)

(1 December 2003)

The lifting of the United Nations sanctions on 12 September 2003 is indeed an important step towards the reintegration of Libya into the international community. This was a condition for Libya to join the Barcelona Process, which is the framework of Union relations towards Mediterranean Countries. Libya is invited to become a full member of the Barcelona Process as soon as it has accepted fully all its ‘acquis’.

Libya's accession to the Barcelona process remains the main Union policy towards this country. In the meantime, possible co-operation on specific areas of interest, as is the case for example for illegal immigration, is being developed.

In the context of Union enlargement, consideration should be given to how it could incorporate Libya into its policy towards neighbouring countries, on the basis of the respect of shared values.

The issue of compensation for assets confiscated from Italians expelled by the Libyan regime is a bilateral one and therefore is not being dealt with at the EU level.

---
STATE of North Carolina v. Allen Ray WEST.

No. 193A15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Nov. 5, 2015.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina . Court of Appeals, filed by the Defendant on the 9th of June 2015 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 <page vol="778" reporter="S.E.2d" no="282" /> Carolina Court of Appeals: the motion to dismiss the appeal is

> "Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th of November 2015."
# CE2004078EN.01009902.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/99 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/99

---

(2004/C 78 E/0099)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2251/03

by Joaquim Miranda (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(7 July 2003)

Subject:   Charter for Children in Hospital

Subject:

In 1988 a ‘Charter for Children in Hospital’ was drawn up in Leiden with the aim of making care services for children more human.

The 19 European countries which have to date acceded to the Charter, and which include Portugal, France, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland and Iceland, jointly founded a ‘European Association for Children in Hospital’ which decided, at its 7th international conference held in Brussels in 2002, to propose associating the EU institutions in its discussions. Although this issue does not fall within the Community's sphere of competence, will the Commission indicate whether it intends to look into the matter, in particular by proposing that the Council adopt measures in line with the recommendations made in the Charter?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(7 August 2003)

(7 August 2003)

As indicated by the Honourable Member, the issue of hospitalisation of children does not fall within the Community's sphere of competence.

The responsibility for health care lies with the Member States. The Commission is not able to intervene in this respect and will, therefore, not propose that the Council adopt measures in line with the recommendations made in the Charter for Children in Hospital.

---
ALLEN v. CARE FOCUS DURHAM.

No. COA07-852.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed February 17, 2009.

Certification Date March 9, 2009.

Appeal from NC Industrial Commission (I.C. 162649, I.C. 355745).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
STATE v. Delwood Earl SHELLY.

No. 268P15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Nov. 5, 2015.

Delwood Earl Shelly, Lillington, for Shelly, Delwood Earl.

Daniel P. O'Brien, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

William R. West, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 30th of July 2015 by Defendant to Appoint Counsel:

> "Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th of November 2015."
Exhibit 10.14

                                 ASPA GOLD CORP.
                 (FORMERLY KNOWN AS RENAISSANCE BIOENERGY INC.)
                              SHAREHOLDER AGREEMENT

The undersigned  shareholder  ("Shareholder") of ASPA Gold Corp. (formerly known
as Renaissance BioEnergy Inc.), a Nevada corporation  ("Company"),  for good and
valuable consideration and intending to be legally bound hereby, enters into the
following agreement for the benefit of the Company and all other shareholders of
the Company who enter into  substantially  similar agreements during the term of
this Agreement.

     1.   Shareholder has acquired an additional 31,000,000 (Thirty one million)
          restricted  shares of  common  stock,  US$0.00001  par  value,  of the
          Company (the  "Restricted  Shares").  Shareholder  hereby agrees that,
          during the period from the date hereof  until  November  24, 2012 (the
          "Restricted  Period"),  Shareholder will not sell,  alienate,  pledge,
          assign, transfer,  convey or in any way encumber any of the Restricted
          Shares.

     2.   For a period  of 2 (Two)  years  following  the end of the  Restricted
          Period, Shareholder will not sell, alienate, pledge, assign, transfer,
          convey or in any way encumber more than 2,000,000 (Two million) shares
          of the Restricted Shares during any consecutive  period of 90 (ninety)
          days.

     3.   Paragraphs 1 and 2 shall apply to the  Restricted  Shares,  even after
          such  shares may have  become  free-trading  pursuant  to Rule 144, an
          effective SEC registration statement or some other cause.  Shareholder
          understands that the certificates for the Restricted Shares shall bear
          a  restrictive  legend and that stop  transfer  instructions  shall be
          issued to the Company's Transfer Agent.

     4.   The Company and each other holder of restricted  shares of the Company
          who executes and delivers a substantially similar agreement shall each
          be third party beneficiaries of this Agreement and shall have standing
          to enforce this Agreement.

     5.   This Agreement  shall be governed by and construed in accordance  with
          the  laws  of  the  State  of  Nevada  (other  than   conflict-of-laws
          principles).  Shareholder  hereby consents to the  jurisdiction of the
          State and Federal  courts  sitting in Clark  County,  Nevada,  for all
          cases and  controversies  arising from this Agreement and acknowledges
          that said courts are not "inconvenient forums."
<PAGE>
IN WITNESS WHEREOF,  Shareholder has executed and delivered this Agreement as of
the day and year set forth below.

NORTH AMERICAN GOLD & MINERALS FUND,
A Nevada corporation


By /s/ Ronald Yadin Lowenthal
  -----------------------------------
RONALD YADIN LOWENTHAL
Date: November 29, 2010
# Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 663/2014 (repealed)Show full title

Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 663/2014 of 5 June 2014 replacing Annexes A, B and C to Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000            on insolvency proceedings (repealed)         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 663/2014                     

# of 5 June 2014

# replacing Annexes A, B and C to Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 on insolvency proceedings (repealed)

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

Textual Amendments

F1Repealed by Regulation (EU) 2015/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on insolvency proceedings.
STATE of North Carolina v. Darrell Lugene GARRIS.

No. 381P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 11, 2008.

Charlesena Walker, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Garris.

Marcus Lodge, Special Deputy Attorney General, Garry W. Frank, District Attorney, for State of NC.

Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ____, 663 S.E.2d 340.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 18th day of August 2008 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 11th day of December 2008."
# C_2023321EN.01006501.xml

| 11.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 321/65 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 321/65

---

Action brought on 25 July 2023 — Webedia Gaming v EUIPO (GamePro)

(Case T-433/23)

(2023/C 321/73)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Webedia Gaming GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: O. Spieker, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark GamePro — Application No 18 181 227

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 May 2023 in Case R 1246/2022-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision in so far as the appeal was dismissed; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision in so far as the appeal was dismissed;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### DEC 20 2002 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

LEE DAVID HUMPHREY,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v. VANCE EVERETT, Warden of the Wyoming State Penitentiary; WYOMING ATTORNEY GENERAL; MARK MCKINNA, Warden of Crowley County Correctional Facility,

Respondents-Appellees. No. 02-8030 (D.C. No. 99-CV-119-J) (D. Wyo.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before BRISCOE , Circuit Judge, BRORBY , Senior Circuit Judge, and HARTZ , Circuit Judge.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materiallyassist the determination of-2-

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). T he case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Pro se appellant Lee David Humphrey was convicted o f two counts of second-degree sexual assault of his daughter, and h is conviction was affirmed by the Wyoming Supreme Court. See Humphrey v. State , 962 P.2d 866 (Wyo. 1998). He petitioned the district court for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and was denied relief. He now seeks a certificate of appea lability (COA) from this court. Mr. Humphrey petitioned the federal district court for habeas relief on the following grounds: (1) erroneous admission of prior bad act evidence; (2) erroneous admission of expert testimony; (3) erroneous admission of prejudicial testimony by Wi lliam D. Hansen; (4) erroneous admission of prejudicial testimony by Marilyn Davis Newman; (5) erroneous admission of prejudicial hearsay testimo ny; (6) erroneous admission of prior consistent out-of-cou rt statements; and (7) denial of a fair trial through ineffective assistance of counsel.1 Mr. Humphrey makes passing reference to Brady violations by the district

court, but there is no argument or authority in sup port of this contention. -3- In his application for COA, Mr. Humphrey appears to confine himself to the issue of whether the federal district court vio lated his due process rights in delaying decision of his habeas petition. 1 We grant COA only where there is a substantial show ing of denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). I n other words, the petitioner must demonstrate that jurists of reason could debate whe ther the petition should have been resolved in a different manner. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Having reviewed the arguments and materials submitt ed by Mr. Humphrey and the district court’s decision, we conclude thatMr. Humphrey has failed to meet this standard. Accordingly, the applicatio n for COA is DENIED and the appeal is DISMISSED for substantially the reasons s tated by the district court. Mr. Humphrey’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED.

Entered for the Court

Wade Brorby Senior Circuit Judge
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                   <C>                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>         3-MOS                        3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                 SEP-30-1997                    SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                      DEC-31-1996                    DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                              5,842,822                        657,840
<SECURITIES>                                0                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                       3,191,616                      1,498,136
<ALLOWANCES>                           78,000                         63,817
<INVENTORY>                         4,979,745                      2,912,292
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                   14,287,198                      5,212,275 
<PP&E>                                393,221                        337,893
<DEPRECIATION>                        238,653                        201,744
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     14,500,990                      5,409,632
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>               5,955,048                      3,531,632
<BONDS>                                     0                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0                              0
<PREFERRED>                                 0                              0
<COMMON>                               44,653                         27,562
<OTHER-SE>                          8,501,289                      1,850,438
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>       14,500,990                      5,409,632
<SALES>                             6,546,188                      4,510,217 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                    6,546,188                      4,510,217
<CGS>                               4,917,290                      3,418,809
<TOTAL-COSTS>                       1,112,411                        840,937
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            0                              0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        3,000                          5,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          0                              0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                       580,866                        212,627
<INCOME-TAX>                          130,927                         10,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                   449,939                        202,627
<DISCONTINUED>                              0                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0                              0
<CHANGES>                                   0                              0
<NET-INCOME>                          449,939                        202,627
<EPS-PRIMARY>                         $  0.10                         $ 0.07
<EPS-DILUTED>                               0                              0
        

</TABLE>
----

(2004/C 33 E/213)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2079/03

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(17 June 2003)

Subject:   French swimming pools reserved for Muslim women — is this discrimination?

According to press reports (see ‘Le Figaro’, 11 June 2003), some French public swimming pools have created segregated areas for men and women in an attempt to win favour with the local Muslim communities.

Does the Commission not believe that this sets a disturbing precedent and represents a surrender by public bodies to the most extreme demands of Islamic fundamentalism?

Does the Commission not consider this forced segregation to be in clear breach of the principles of gender equality and equal treatment, as well as being contrary to the general principles of Community law?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(23 July 2003)

The Honourable Member is referring to recent press reports according to which French public swimming pools ‘have created segregated areas for women and men in an attempt to win favour with the local Muslim communities’.

The Commission considers that such measures facilitate the daily life of both Muslim and non-Muslim women who prefer to use the facilities on a single-sex basis. Indeed, a number of French swimming pools have reserved specific times of the day when women and men can use, if they wish, the facilities separately from each other.

The Commission does not believe that this measure may be qualified as ‘a surrender by public bodies to the most extreme demands of Islamic fundamentalism’ given that women and men are free to use the swimming pools at any other time of the day as well. The Commission neither considers this measure as a breach of the principles of gender equality and equal treatment but rather as a means for ensuring the respect of both the personal preferences of certain people and the religious habits of some members of the Muslim communities.

----
----

(2004/C 33 E/254)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2306/03

by Philip Claeys (NI) to the Commission

(14 July 2003)

Subject:   ‘For Diversity, Against Discrimination’ campaign — indirect discrimination

On 16 June 2003, Mrs Diamantopoulou, Member of the Commission, launched her ‘For Diversity, Against Discrimination’ campaign. One of the aspects of discrimination referred to on the campaign website is what is known as indirect discrimination. The following instance is quoted: An example of indirect discrimination is requiring all people who apply for a certain job to pass a test in a specific language, even though knowledge of that language is not necessary for the job. This test might exclude more people whose first language is not the language tested.

That concerns a problem which, to date, has indeed been neglected. Quite a number of undertakings and organisations active on the margins of the European institutions in Brussels apply language criteria to job applicants which discriminate against the local populace. Furthermore, as regards job advertisements, the practice is widespread of applying the criterion not that the person appointed must have a knowledge of languages as such but that he/she must be a native speaker.

How is Commission planning to resolve the problem of indirect discrimination based on unfair language requirements in its ‘For Diversity, Against Discrimination’ campaign? What specific measures are planned in this area?

----
STATE v. ROWE.

No. COA08-639.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed March 17, 2009.

Certification Date April 6, 2009.

Appeal from Wayne (07CRS51225).

Case reported without published opinion. No prejudicial error.
----

(2004/C 33 E/233)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2168/03

by Jean Lambert (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(30 June 2003)

Subject:   Violation of safety conditions in the Olympic Stadium in Marousi, Greece

Preparations for the 2004 Athens Olympic Games are now under way. Construction work is taking place in Marousi, the town were the Olympic Stadium is located.

Is the Commission aware of the following serious breaches of Greek law:

What measures will the Commission take in order to put an end to these infringements relating to working conditions and to guarantee the employees' health and safety at work, given the fact that their work will be intensified as the date for the 2004 Olympic Games approaches?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(14 August 2003)

The Commission has not received any complaints concerning the breaches of Greek law pointed out by the Honourable Member, but shares her concerns over them. Thus, the Commission will invite the Greek Authorities to submit their observations on the safety conditions in the Olympic Stadium in Marousi.

In any event, the Commission would like to draw the attention of the Honourable Member to the fact that it is up to the Member States to ensure that national legislation transposing Community Directives is complied with and properly enforced.

If this should not be the case, the Commission will not hesitate to initiate an infringement procedure under Article 226 of the EC Treaty against the Member State in question.

----