alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# CE2004088EN.01005501.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/55

---

(2004/C 88 E/0059)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2083/03

by Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 June 2003)

Subject:   Violations of Greek air space by Turkish aircraft and security of the inhabitants of the Aegean

Subject:

During a recent visit to the border islands of Samos and Ikaria I experienced the deep anxiety felt by the inhabitants at the constant, provocative violations of Aegean air space by Turkish warplanes and the impact which they have on the lives and security of the local people as well as their livelihood in the tourist industry.

The alarm was compounded, in particular, following the recent incident in which two Turkish F16 fighters harassed an Olympic Airways flight bound for Istanbul from Athens.

What view does the Commission take of Turkey's conduct in this respect and what measures will it take forthwith to put an end to such violations by Turkey?

What measures will it take to address the insecurity felt by European citizens living in or travelling through the Aegean and to restore normality and peace to the wider region?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-1984/03, E-2050/03 and E-2083/03

given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(7 August 2003)

(7 August 2003)

As an EU Candidate Country, Turkey has undertaken to comply with the criteria for accession.

In terms of the specific issue raised by the Honourable Member, the Commission recalls the principle of peaceful settlement of border disputes and other related issues as established under paragraph 4 of the Helsinki European Council Conclusions in December 1999.

Under the revised Accession Partnership with Turkey, adopted on 19 May 2003 (1), there is a specific priority relating to this principle.

1

The Commission is monitoring closely the progress achieved by Turkey in this and other areas and will make a detailed assessment in its Regular Report to be published on 5 November 2003.

---

(1)  OJ L 145, 12.6.2003.

1

---
STATE v. Keith A. LEAK.

No. 206A15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 23, 2015.

Narendra Ghosh, Chapel Hill, for Leak, Keith A.

Ebony J. Pittman, Assistant Attorney General, Derrick Mertz, Assistant Attorney General, Pat Robison, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 22nd of June 2015 by State of NC for Temporary Stay:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 23rd of June 2015."
STATE of North Carolina v. Houston Antonio GEORGE.

No. COA15-535.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Feb. 16, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

New Trial.
BRANCH BANKING & TRUST COMPANY v. PEACOCK FARM, INC., et al.

No. 230A15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Sept. 16, 2015.

Michael J. Newman, Pinehurst, for Lynch, Rodolphe T.

William Van O'Linda, Jr., Pinehurst, for Lynch, Rodolphe T.

John N. Hutson, Jr., Raleigh, for Branch Banking and Trust Company.

Brian E. Moore, Raleigh.

R. Palmer Sugg, Raleigh, for Rhodes, Willard A., et al.

Matthew M. Lawless, for Branch Banking and Trust Company.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 8th of September 2015 by Plaintiff to Supplement the Record:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 16th of September 2015."
# C_2023179EN.01007101.xml

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/71 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/71

---

Action brought on 31 March 2023 — Hong Kong NetEase Interactive Entertainment v EUIPO — Medion (LifeAfter)

(Case T-175/23)

(2023/C 179/98)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Hong Kong NetEase Interactive Entertainment Ltd (Sheung Wan, Hong Kong, China) (represented by: J. Carbonell Callicó, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Medion AG (Essen, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word trade mark LifeAfter — Application for registration No 17 992 446

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 December 2022 in Case R 557/2022-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision, expressly according the registration of the EU trade mark No 17 992 446; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision, expressly according the registration of the EU trade mark No 17 992 446;

| — | order EUIPO and the intervening party, Medion AG to pay all the costs of the dispute before the General Court, including those relating to the procedure before the EUIPO. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the intervening party, Medion AG to pay all the costs of the dispute before the General Court, including those relating to the procedure before the EUIPO.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
<PAGE>   1


                                                                      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 March 16, 2001, 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, 2001.


                                              /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
April 27, 2001
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                     CERTIFICATION OF THE PRESIDENT AND CEO

     I, Robert C. Harbage, President and Chief Executive Officer of UBICS, Inc.,
do hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

     (1) the Annual Report on Form 10-K of UBICS, Inc. for the year ended
December 31, 2002 (the "Periodic Report") which this statement accompanies fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m),

     and

     (2) the information contained in the Periodic Report fairly represents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
UBICS, Inc.

March 28, 2003


                                           By: /s/ Robert C. Harbage
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Robert C. Harbage

                                           President and Chief Executive Officer
ORDER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(Second Chamber)

16 April 2007

Case F-82/05

**Michel Thierry**

**v**

**Commission of the European Communities**

(Officials – Promotion – Non‐inclusion in the list of officials promoted – 2004 promotion procedure – Priority points – Merit – Length of service – Admissibility)

**Application:**brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Mr Thierry seeks, principally, annulment of the list of officials promoted
under the 2004 promotion procedure (published in *Administrative Notices* No 130-2004 of 30 November 2004), in so far as that list does not include the applicant’s name.

**Held:**The action is dismissed in part as manifestly inadmissible and in part as manifestly unfounded. Each party is to bear its
own costs.

**Summary**

*Officials – Actions – Interest in bringing proceedings*

*(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)*

An official is not entitled to act in the interests of the law or of the institutions and may put forward, in support of an
action for the annulment of a measure, only such claims as relate to him personally. An action brought by an official seeking
annulment of the list of officials promoted to the higher grade in a promotion procedure for a given year because that list
does not contain the applicant’s name is therefore inadmissible where the applicant has not shown why he has a personal interest
in bringing the action, and has merely relied on the unlawfulness of certain categories of promotion points, without providing
in his written submissions any specific information about his personal situation with regard to the promotion year in question,
such as, in particular, the number of promotion points that he received in those categories. Such a finding cannot be called
into question by the fact that the number of those promotion points is apparent from documents attached to the defence, since
it is for the applicant to establish, in his written submissions, that he has an interest in bringing proceedings and, if
appropriate, to refer to the corresponding evidence provided in an annex.

(see paras 30, 33)

See:

85/82 *Schloh* v *Council* [1983] ECR 2105, para. 14

T-436/04 *Sanchez Ferriz* v *Commission* [2006] ECR-SC I‐A‐2‐273 and II‐A‐2‐1423, para. 35; T-422/04 *Lavagnoli* v *Commission*, of 23 November 2006, not published in the ECR, para. 31
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3652 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3652

  To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide for penalties for 
   aggravated identity theft facilitated by employment at an agency 
      implementing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            December 4, 2013

 Mr. Holding introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide for penalties for 
   aggravated identity theft facilitated by employment at an agency 
      implementing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``No Identity Theft in Health Care Act 
of 2013''.

SEC. 2. CERTAIN HEALTHCARE-RELATED OFFENSES.

    Section 1028A of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
inserting after paragraph (2):
            ``(3) Certain healthcare-related offenses.--Whoever, during 
        and in relation to any felony violation enumerated in 
        subsection (c), knowingly transfers, possesses, or uses, 
        without lawful authority, a means of identification of another 
        person, if that transfer, possession, or use was facilitated by 
        being an officer or employee of the United States or of any 
        department or agency thereof charged with the implementation of 
        the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, shall, in 
        addition to the punishment provided for such felony, be 
        sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 5 years.''.
                                 <all>
```
# CE2004084EN.01047901.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/479 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/479

---

(2004/C 84 E/0555)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1886/03

by Emmanouil Bakopoulos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(27 May 2003)

Subject:   Iraqi cultural heritage

Subject:

According to press reports, the Baghdad National Museum and the Mosul Museum have been primary targets for looting. To date, over 170 000 ancient exhibits have been stolen.

What steps will the Commission take to safeguard Iraq's cultural heritage and to locate the stolen exhibits?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(20 June 2003)

(20 June 2003)

The Commission is deeply concerned by the looting and the destruction of a large number of archaeological treasures in the National Archaeological Museum of Baghdad. The Commission supports the views expressed by Unesco in the call issued on 17 April 2003, which deplored the extensive damages to the cultural heritage of Iraq, and recommended measures to stop the traffic of cultural objects exported illicitly.

The Commission is confident that all measures will be taken by the coalition forces, as present the responsible authority in Iraq, so that further destruction is avoided. In this respect, the Commission is preparing a draft regulation to implement the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1483, which repeals the sanctions imposed on Iraq trade. The Commission is considering the possibility of introducing a ban on the import of cultural objects from Iraq, according to the relevant article of Resolution 1483.

---
PACKERS PRINTING AND PUBLISHING COMPANY, INC. and Packers Printing and Publishing Company, Inc. t/d/b/a Budget Printing, Co. v. ANAJET, LLC; and Anajet, LLC t/d/b/a Anajet, Inc.

No. 311P14.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Aug. 20, 2015.

John P. Barringer, Charlotte, for Anajet, LLC, et al.

Jeffrey B. Kuykendal, Charlotte.

Boyd Worley, for Packers Printing and Publishing Company, Inc., et al.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 3rd of September 2014 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 20th of August 2015."
In the Matter of M.J.C.J.

No. COA15-153.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Sept. 1, 2015.

**CASE REPORTED WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINON**

Reversed.
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 17

- 15798 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 2:17

- cr - 14034

- JEM

- 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus LOUIS HUFF , Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida

________________________ (June 14, 2018) Before MARTIN , ROSENBAUM, a nd JILL PRYOR , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: Louis Huff negotiated a plea agreement with the government under which he agreed t o plead guilty to one count of possession with intent to distribute

Case: 17-15798 Date Filed: 06/14/2018 Page: 1 of 32 methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)

. As part of that deal, Huff broadly agreed to waive his right to appeal his sentence in exchange for the government’s promises to take certain actions at sentencing. The district court accepted Huff’s guilty plea and then sentenced him to 150 months of imprisonment, within the guideline range of 135 to 168 months. Huff now appeals his sentence, arguing that his sentence is unreasonably high. T he government has moved to enforce the appeal waiver. We grant the government’s motion. We will enforce an appeal waiver that was made knowingly and voluntarily. United States v. Bascomb , 451 F.3d 1292, 1294 (11th Cir. 2006); United States v. Bushert , 997 F.2d 1343, 1350

– 51 (11th Cir. 1993). To prove that a waiver was made knowingly and voluntarily, t he government must show that (1) the district court specifically questioned the defendant about the waiver during the plea colloquy; or (2) the r ecord makes clear that the defendant otherwise understood the full significance of the waiver. Bushert , 997 F.2d at 1351.
W e enforce the waiver in Huff’s plea agreement . First, we f ind that the waiver was made knowingly and voluntarily. Huff was spec ifically questioned about the terms of the waiver , including its exceptions, during the plea colloquy , and Huff confirmed that he understood the waiver and had discussed it with his attorney. Case: 17-15798 Date Filed: 06/14/2018 Page: 2 of 33 Second, no ex ception to the waiver applies. By agreeing to t he waiver, Huff waived the right to appeal unless (a) the sentence exceeded the statutory maximum, (b) the sentence exceeded the guideline range, or (c) the government appealed. Because Huff’s sentence did not exceed the statutory maximum or his guideline range and the government has not appealed , the waiver bars this appeal

. For these reasons , we GRANT the government’s motion to dismiss Huff’s appeal based on the sentence

- appeal waiver in his plea agreement.

Case: 17-15798 Date Filed: 06/14/2018 Page: 3 of 3
Carlton CLARK, Jr. v. Susan Belmain DYER.

No. 174P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Nov. 5, 2015.

Susan Belmain Dyer, for Dyer, Susan Belmain.

*280K. Edward Greene, Raleigh, for Clark, Carlton (Jr.).

Tobias S. Hampson, Raleigh, for Clark, Carlton (Jr.).

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Plaintiff on the 26th of May 2015 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

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

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Plaintiff on the 26th of May 2015 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Hoke 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 5th of November 2015."
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
                  
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     US DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         853,051
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  62,867
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               915,918
<PP&E>                                         11,947,352
<DEPRECIATION>                                 911,869
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 13,292,865
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          475,975
<BONDS>                                        11,076,350
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    1,661,452
<COMMON>                                       815,200
<OTHER-SE>                                     (736,112)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   13,292,865
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               579,777
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               263,477
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             358,320
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (42,020)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (42,020)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (42,020)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.05)
        


</TABLE>
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 958/2014Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 958/2014 of 10 September 2014 establishing the standard import values for determining            the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 958/2014                     

# of 10 September 2014

# establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural                           markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation)(1),                        

Having regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application                           of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors(2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations,                              the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products                              and periods stipulated in Annex XVI, Part A thereto.

(2)The standard import value is calculated each working day, in accordance with Article 136(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU)                              No 543/2011, taking into account variable daily data. Therefore this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its                              publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

The standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to                     this Regulation.                  

# Article 2U.K.

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*.                  

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 10 September 2014.

*For the Commission,*                            

*On behalf of the President,*                            

Jerzy Plewa                            

*Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development*                            

## ANNEXU.K.Standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

1

OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.                           

2

OJ L 157, 15.6.2011, p. 1.
STATE of North Carolina v. Bobby Frederick WALLS, Jr., Defendant.

No. COA15-289.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Dec. 15, 2015.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Affirmed.