alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# CE2004088EN.01045101.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/451 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/451

---

(2004/C 88 E/0461)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3110/03

by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission

(17 October 2003)

Subject:   Withdrawal of Community funding for the Juan XXIII project in Alicante (Spain)

Subject:

The Finance Ministry recently notified Alicante Town Council of the formal decision taken by the Commission to suspend ERDF funding for the rehabilitation of the Juan XXIII district of Alicante.

Why has the Commission withdrawn the Community support for the project?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(11 November 2003)

(11 November 2003)

The Commission can inform the Honourable Member that the project for the rehabilitation of the Juan XXIII district of Alicante to which she refers was not included in any proposal to the Commission for part-financing under the Structural Funds.

The Commission contacted the authorities at the Ministry of Finance responsible for the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) in Spain, who confirm that this project was not put forward for Community part-financing under the local operational programme (2000-2006) for reasons relating to compliance with the Community rules on public procurement.

The Commission would remind the Honourable Member that, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, the Member States have sole responsibility for the selection of individual projects in each programme for part-financing under the Structural Funds and for their implementation.

---
# Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2015/383Show full title

Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2015/383 of 6 March 2015 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures            against Syria         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2015/383                     

# of 6 March 2015

# implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 31(2) thereof,

Having regard to Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP of 31 May 2013 concerning restrictive measures against Syria(1), and in particular Article 30(1) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)On 31 May 2013, the Council adopted Decision 2013/255/CFSP.

(2)In view of the gravity of the situation, seven persons and six entities should be added to the list of natural and legal persons,                              entities or bodies subject to restrictive measures in Annex I to Decision 2013/255/CFSP.

(3)Decision 2013/255/CFSP should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

# Article 1U.K.

Annex I to Decision 2013/255/CFSP shall be amended as set out in the Annex to this Decision.

# Article 2U.K.

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

Done at Brussels, 6 March 2015.

*For the Council*                            

*The President*                            

K. Gerhards                            

## ANNEXU.K.

The following persons and entities are added to the list of natural and legal persons, entities or bodies set out in Sections                     A and B of Annex I to Decision 2013/255/CFSP:                  

### A.PersonsU.K.

### B.EntitiesU.K.

1

OJ L 147, 1.6.2013, p. 14.
# CE2004078EN.01027301.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/273 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/273

---

(2004/C 78 E/0274)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3372/03

by Mogens Camre (UEN) to the Commission

(14 November 2003)

Subject:   Denmark's prospects of renegotiating Protocol 16

Subject:

Several countries — Sweden, Austria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Cyprus etc. — expressed their desire during accession negotiations for a similar arrangement to that which Denmark has under Protocol 16 concerning the acquisition of holiday homes. They were all refused a permanent arrangement such as Denmark has but were granted temporary transitional arrangements as set out, for example, in draft law L 222 on enlargement to the east, pages 26 and 27. Will the Commission say whether any countries have already argued, or are expected to argue during the forthcoming renegotiation of the protocols, that it is unacceptable for Denmark to have a permanent arrangement while they themselves were refused one?

Further to my question concerning the legal implications of ratification of the EU's draft constitution, what is the Commission's assessment of Denmark's prospects of renegotiating Protocol 16 at the Intergovernmental Conference so as to retain its derogation concerning the right of EU citizens to purchase holiday homes in Denmark?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(18 December 2003)

(18 December 2003)

Danish restrictions on the purchase of second homes are the only country specific exception to the free movement of capital within the Community. The Protocol on the acquisition of property in Denmark is an integral part of the EC Treaty, following the entry into force of the Treaty on European Union, and, unlike certain other temporary exceptions, such as transitional measures granted in the context of accession negotiations, there are no time limits set on its duration. As the Honourable Member is aware, any changes in this particular provision would require a modification to the EC Treaty agreed by all Member States, including Denmark.

As regards Candidate Countries, the Treaty of Accession to the European Union 2003, signed in Athens on 16 April 2003 and currently being ratified by Member States, includes a special permanent arrangement for Malta for the purchase of secondary residences (Protocol No 6) as well as transitional arrangements for other candidates.

The Honourable Member may already know that the Commission participates in the group of legal experts of the Intergovernmental Conference whose task is, among others, to adapt the Treaties' Protocols to the new legal environment provided for by the draft Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe. In this sense, the Commission can confirm that, following the adaptation, the content of the aforementioned Protocol is substantially the same.

---
STATE v. Rayford Lewis BURKE.

No. 181A93-4.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 17, 2016.

Franklin E. Wells, Jr., Asheboro, for Burke, Rayford Lewis.

Gretchen Engel, Durham, for Burke, Rayford Lewis.

Danielle Marquis Elder, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of N.C.

Mikko Red Arrow, Assistant District Attorney, for State of N.C.

Jonathan Babb, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of N.C.

Sarah Kirkman, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 29th of August 2014 by Defendant to Hold Petition for Writ of Certiorari in Abeyance:

> "Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 17th of March 2016."

ERVIN, J. recused.
LSB FINANCIAL CORP.
                        COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                             (Dollars in thousands)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                 For the three months ended
                                                                September 30, 1997                     September 30, 1998
                                                         ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                    Weighted                                Weighted
                                                                     Average     Per share                   Average     Per share
                                                        Income        Shares       Amount       Income        Shares       Amount
<S>                                                     <C>           <C>           <C>         <C>           <C>           <C>  
Basic EPS
  Income available to common shareholders               $   414       897,894       $0.46       $   429       887,655       $0.48

Effect of dilutive securities
  Options                                                              35,195                                  37,355

Diluted EPS
  Income available to common shareholders                   414       933,089       $0.44       $   429       925,010       $0.46

<CAPTION>

                                                                                For the nine months ended
                                                                September 30, 1997                     September 30, 1998
                                                         ------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                                     <C>           <C>           <C>         <C>           <C>           <C>  
Basic EPS
  Income available to common shareholders                $1,132       868,913       $1.24       $ 1,343       864,727       $1.55

Effect of dilutive securities
  Options                                                              33,519                                  36,023

Diluted EPS
  Income available to common shareholders                 1,132       902,432       $1.19       $ 1,343       900,750       $1.49


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                                      <C>

<PERIOD-TYPE>                            3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                        OCT-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                           NOV-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                             JAN-31-1998
<CASH>                                     2,894,882
<SECURITIES>                                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                253,743
<ALLOWANCES>                                (57,589)
<INVENTORY>                                8,137,617
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   0
<PP&E>                                     2,880,045
<DEPRECIATION>                             (644,082)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            19,853,317
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              0
<BONDS>                                   59,817,770
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<COMMON>                                   3,484,560
<OTHER-SE>                              (44,578,111)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              19,853,317
<SALES>                                    6,664,232
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           6,811,621
<CGS>                                      4,166,344
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              4,704,284
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            31,624
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            2,086,056
<INCOME-TAX>                                 835,500
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        1,250,556
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                               1,250,556
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    .36
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      0
        

</TABLE>
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

______________________________

No. 06-08-00179-CR

______________________________

BRUCE EARL GODLOCK, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

 

On Appeal from the 124th Judicial District Court

Gregg County, Texas

Trial Court No. 36487-B

 

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Moseley
Counsel filed an "Out of Time Notice of Appeal" on behalf of Godlock. In that notice of 1

appeal, counsel states that Godlock requested and was appointed counsel for appeal on or

about June 5, but appointed counsel was not notified by the trial court of the appointment until

August 13.

2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Bruce Earl Godlock attempts to appeal from his conviction for delivery of a controlled

substance. His sentence was imposed June 5, 2008, and no motion for new trial was filed. His

notice of appeal was filed August 13, 2008.1

A timely notice of appeal is necessary to invoke this Court's jurisdiction. Olivo v. State, 918

S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). Rule 26.2(a) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure

prescribes the time period in which a notice of appeal must be filed by a defendant in order to perfect

appeal in a criminal case. A defendant's notice of appeal is timely if filed within thirty days after the

day sentence is imposed or suspended in open court, or within ninety days after sentencing if the

defendant timely files a motion for new trial. TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a); Olivo, 918 S.W.2d at 522.

Because no motion for new trial was filed, the last date Godlock could timely file his notice of

appeal was July 7, 2008, thirty days after the day, according to his motion, the sentence was imposed

in open court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a)(1); 4.1(b). Further, no motion for extension of time was

filed in this Court within fifteen days of the last day allowed for filing the notice of appeal.
3

Godlock has failed to perfect his appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of

jurisdiction.

Bailey C. Moseley

Justice

Date Submitted: August 19, 2008

Date Decided: August 20, 2008

Do Not Publish
# C_2008008EN.01001301.xml

| 12.1.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 8/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 8/13

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 27 November 2007 — GATEWAY v OHIM — Fujitsu Siemens Computers (ACTIVY Media Gateway)

(Case T-434/05) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark ACTIVY Media Gateway - Earlier Community and national word and figurative marks Gateway and GATEWAY - Relative grounds for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Absence of similarity between the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 8(5) of Regulation No 40/94)

(2008/C 8/24)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Gateway, Inc. (Irvine, California, United States) (represented initially by: C.R. Jones and P. Massey, and subsequently by C.R. Jones and E.S. Mackenzie, solicitors)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Laporta Insa, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Fujitsu Siemens Computers GmbH (Munich, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 September 2005 (Case R 1068/2004-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Fujitsu Siemens Computers GmbH and Gateway, Inc.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Gateway, Inc., to bear its own costs and to pay those of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Gateway, Inc., to bear its own costs and to pay those of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs).

---

(1)  OJ C 60, 11.3.2006.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM LIN HOLDINGS
CORP. CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH LIN HOLDINGS CORP. ANNUAL
REPORT ON FORM 10-Q DATED JUNE 30, 1999.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0001062707
<NAME> LIN HOLDINGS CORP.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          13,067
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   46,017
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,671
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                62,839
<PP&E>                                         150,987
<DEPRECIATION>                                  20,199
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,861,427
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           64,755
<BONDS>                                        526,658
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     510,270
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,861,427
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               101,239
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   90,512
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                34,868
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  (47)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              32,131
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (24,141)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (2,172)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (21,969)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (21,969)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 176 (Tuesday, September 13, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 54095]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-18133]


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

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT


Federal Salary Council Meeting

AGENCY: Office of Personnel Management.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Salary Council will meet at the time and location 
shown below. The Council is an advisory body composed of 
representatives of Federal employee organizations and experts in the 
fields of labor relations and pay policy. The Council makes 
recommendations to the President's Pay Agent (the Secretary of Labor 
and the Directors of the Office of Management and Budget and the Office 
of Personnel Management) about the locality pay program for General 
Schedule employees under section 5304 of title 5, United States Code. 
The Council's recommendations cover the establishment of modification 
of locality pay areas, the coverage of salary surveys, the process of 
comparing Federal and non-Federal rates of pay, and the level of 
comparability payments that should be paid.
    The Council will review the results of pay comparisons and 
formulate its recommendations to the President's Pay Agent on pay 
comparison methods, locality pay area boundaries for 2007. The Council 
anticipates it will complete its work for this year at this meeting and 
has not scheduled any additional meetings for 2005. The public may 
submit written materials about the locality pay program to the Council 
at the address shown below. The meeting is open to the public.

DATES: October 3, 2005, at 10 a.m.

LOCATION: Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street, NW., Room 5303 
(Pendleton Room), Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donald J. Winstead, Deputy Associate 
Director for Pay and Performance Policy, Office of Personnel 
Management, 1900 E Street, NW., Room 7H31, Washington, DC 20415-8200. 
Phone (202) 606-2838; FAX (202) 606-4264; or e-mail at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3d4d5c44104d584f5b524f505c535e58104d5251545e447d524d50135a524b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d8a8b9a1f5a8bdaabeb7aab5b9b6bbbdf5a8b7b4b1bba198b7a8b5f6bfb7ae">[email protected]</span></a>.

    For The President's Pay Agent.
Linda M. Springer,
Director.
[FR Doc. 05-18133 Filed 9-12-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6325-39-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 176 (Tuesday, September 13, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 53918-53919]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-18158]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2005-21872; Airspace Docket No. 05-ACE-26]


Modification of Class E Airspace; Norfolk, NE; Correction

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Direct final rule; request for comments; correction.

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

SUMMARY: This action corrects a direct final rule; request for comments 
that was published in the Federal Register on Friday, July 29, 2005, 
(70 FR 43745) [FR Doc. 05-21872].

DATES: This direct final rule is effective on 0901 UTC, October 27, 
2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brenda Mumper, Air Traffic Division, 
Airspace Branch, ACE-520A, DOT Regional Headquarters Building, Federal 
Aviation Administration, 901 Locust, Kansas City, MO 64106; telephone 
(816) 329-2524.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    Federal Register Document 05-21872, published on Friday, July 29, 
2005, (70 FR 43745) modified Class E Airspace at Norfolk, NE. The name 
of the airport is misspelled in the legal description of the Class E5 
Airspace Area. This action corrects that error.

0
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the error in 
the legal description of the Class E5 Airspace Area at Norfolk, NE, as 
published in the Federal Register on Friday, July 29, 2005, (70 FR 
43745) [FR Doc. 05-21872] is corrected as follows:

PART 71--[AMENDED]


Sec.  71.1  [Corrected]

0
On page 43746, Column 3, following ACE NE E5 Norfolk, NE, Replace the

[[Page 53919]]

word ``Stephan'' with the word ``Stefan'' in the airport name. In the 
third line of the following legal description replace the word 
``Stephan'' with the word ``Stefan'' in the airport name.

    Dated: Issued in Kansas City, MO, on September 2, 2005.
Elizabeth S. Wallis,
Acting Area Director, Western Flight Services Operations.
[FR Doc. 05-18158 Filed 9-12-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M