alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# CE2004078EN.01074701.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/747 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/747

---

(2004/C 78 E/0794)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2584/03

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Council

(8 August 2003)

Subject:   Import of timber from Indonesia

Subject:

What measures does the Presidency intend to take to combat the illegal import of timber from Indonesia?

Reply

(4 March 2004)

(4 March 2004)

The Council attaches particular importance to combating the illegal import of timber and recognises the need for the EU to contribute to global efforts to tackle the problem of illegal logging.

Council bodies are therefore currently studying the Communication from the Commission on Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT), which contains an EU Action Plan aimed notably at combating illegal logging and the associated trade in illegal timber.

In the conclusions adopted on 13 October 2003, the Council considered that there was an urgent need for the EU and its Member States to enter into a political dialogue with the countries most directly concerned to instigate forest sector governance reforms and, more specifically, to engage the private sector of the timber producing countries with a view to building a consensus on how best to tackle the problem of illegal logging and the associated trade, in particular by exploring multilateral and regional responses and by studying the ideas developed in the Action Plan at the appropriate international meetings, such as the UNFF (United Nations Forum on Forests), the ITTO (International Tropical Timber Organization), the regional FLEG processes, the Asia Forest Partnership and the Congo Basin Forest Partnership.

Furthermore, in its conclusions the Council invited the Commission to study the measures in the Action Plan, including the drawing up of a Regulation, and to review options for, and the feasibility of, further legislation to control imports of illegally harvested timber and conflict timber, taking account of relevant initiatives in other areas, as well as the impact on domestic industries.

---
LIPE v. STARR DAVIS COMPANY, INC., et al.

No. 445P14-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Aug. 24, 2015.

M. Duane Jones, Charlotte, for Travelers Casualty & Surety.

Hatcher B. Kincheloe, Charlotte.

Michael B. Pross, Cathy A. Williams, Salisbury, for Lipe, Shirley, et al.

Jeri L. Whitfield, Greensboro, Elizabeth Brooks Scherer, Raleigh, for N.C. Chamber and N.C. Association of Defense Attorneys.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 9th of December 2014 by Defendant (Travelers Casualty & Surety) for Temporary Stay:
Exhibit 32
                    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                         18 U.S.C. 1350,
                     AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
          SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In  connection with the Quarterly Report of AEI Income  &  Growth
Fund  XXI Limited Partnership (the "Partnership") on Form  10-QSB
for  the period ended June 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities
and  Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  the
undersigned, Robert P. Johnson, President of AEI Fund  Management
XXI,  Inc., the Managing General Partner of the Partnership,  and
Patrick  W. Keene, Chief Financial Officer of AEI Fund Management
XXI,  Inc., each certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as  adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     1.   The  Report  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 results of operations of the Partnership.



                              /s/ Robert P. Johnson
                              Robert P. Johnson, President
                              AEI Fund Management XXI, Inc.
                              Managing General Partner
                              August 8, 2003




                              /s/ Patrick W. Keene
                              Patrick W. Keene, Chief Financial Officer
                              AEI Fund Management XXI, Inc.
                              Managing General Partner
                              August 8, 2003
[ARTICLE] 9
<TABLE>
<S>                             <C>
[PERIOD-TYPE]                   9-MOS
[FISCAL-YEAR-END]                          SEP-30-1999
[PERIOD-END]                               JUN-30-1999
[CASH]                                         133,257
[INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS]                       3,902,454
[FED-FUNDS-SOLD]                                     0
[TRADING-ASSETS]                                     0
[INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE]                 76,864,231
[INVESTMENTS-CARRYING]                               0
[INVESTMENTS-MARKET]                                 0
[LOANS]                                     16,055,594
[ALLOWANCE]                                     30,000
[TOTAL-ASSETS]                              99,163,151
[DEPOSITS]                                  68,098,965
[SHORT-TERM]                                         0
[LIABILITIES-OTHER]                            541,322
[LONG-TERM]                                 15,000,000
[PREFERRED-MANDATORY]                                0
[PREFERRED]                                          0
[COMMON]                                         8,565
[OTHER-SE]                                  15,514,299
[TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY]              99,163,151
[INTEREST-LOAN]                                911,841
[INTEREST-INVEST]                            3,601,393
[INTEREST-OTHER]                               308,510
[INTEREST-TOTAL]                             4,818,744
[INTEREST-DEPOSIT]                           2,495,161
[INTEREST-EXPENSE]                             626,082
[INTEREST-INCOME-NET]                        1,697,501
[LOAN-LOSSES]                                    5,000
[SECURITIES-GAINS]                             106,287
[EXPENSE-OTHER]                                706,572
[INCOME-PRETAX]                              1,118,023
[INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY]                           0
[EXTRAORDINARY]                                      0
[CHANGES]                                            0
[NET-INCOME]                                   677,876
[EPS-BASIC]                                      .89
[EPS-DILUTED]                                      .89
[YIELD-ACTUAL]                                       0
[LOANS-NON]                                          0
[LOANS-PAST]                                         0
[LOANS-TROUBLED]                                     0
[LOANS-PROBLEM]                                      0
[ALLOWANCE-OPEN]                                25,000
[CHARGE-OFFS]                                        0
[RECOVERIES]                                         0
[ALLOWANCE-CLOSE]                               30,000
[ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC]                            30,000
[ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN]                                  0
[ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED]                         30,000
</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.9

                                 ASPA GOLD CORP.
                 (FORMERLY KNOWN AS RENAISSANCE BIOENERGY INC.)
                      CANCELLATION OF ACCRUED COMPENSATION

The  undersigned  present  or former  officer  or  director  of ASPA Gold  Corp.
(formerly   known  as  Renaissance   BioEnergy   Inc.),  a  Nevada   corporation
("Company"),  is owed  compensation  (the  "Payable") by the Company for past or
future  services.  The Company is entering into a Line of Credit Loan  Agreement
(the "Loan  Agreement")  with North  American Gold & Minerals  Fund  ("Lender"),
pursuant to which Lender will make available to the Company an unsecured line of
credit. As a condition to entering into the Loan Agreement, Lender requires that
the undersigned cancel and forgive, in its entirety,  the Payable.  Accordingly,
for good and valuable  consideration  and  intending to be legally bound hereby,
the  undersigned  hereby  cancels and  forgives,  in its  entirety,  any accrued
compensation  owed by the Company for past or future  services:  The undersigned
represents  and warrants  that the amount set forth below  constitutes  all sums
owing to the undersigned with respect to past or future services to the Company.
The undersigned will claim no further  compensation  from the Company and hereby
consents to termination by the Company of any agreement or arrangement  pursuant
to which such compensation was accrued.

Name:   David Arthun
Amount: $59,225.81

Each of Company  and Lender  shall be  beneficiaries  entitled  to enforce  this
Cancellation.

This Cancellation shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws
of the State of Nevada (other than conflict-of-laws principles). The undersigned
hereby  consents to the  jurisdiction of the State and Federal courts sitting in
Clark  County,  Nevada,  for all  cases  and  controversies  arising  from  this
Cancellation and acknowledges that said courts are not "inconvenient forums."

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed and delivered this Amendment as
of the day and year set forth below.

DAVID ARTHUN


/s/ David Arthun
-----------------------------------
Date: November 30, 2010
# CE2004078EN.01020801.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/208 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/208

---

(2004/C 78 E/0212)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3010/03

by Adriana Poli Bortone (UEN) to the Commission

(8 October 2003)

Subject:   Blackout in Italy

Subject:

Can the Commission say whether it intends to ascertain the causes of the blackout which hit Italy during the night of 27/28 September 2003?

Was the lengthy power cut caused by ‘human error’ as reported in the press or by other factors attributable to the countries that supply Italy with energy?

Answer given by Ms de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(6 November 2003)

(6 November 2003)

According to the information currently available, provided by the UCTE (Union for the Co-ordination of Transmission of Electricity), the sequence of events was as follows:

| — | 28 September 2003 at 03.01 h: Lavorgno-Mettlen line tripped (situated in Switzerland, supplying Italy). |
| --- | --- |

—

28 September 2003 at 03.01 h: Lavorgno-Mettlen line tripped (situated in Switzerland, supplying Italy).

| — | 28 September 2003 at 03.25 h: Sils-Soazza and Airlo-Mettlen lines tripped (Swiss lines, supplying Italy). |
| --- | --- |

—

28 September 2003 at 03.25 h: Sils-Soazza and Airlo-Mettlen lines tripped (Swiss lines, supplying Italy).

After these power cuts the electricity supply from Switzerland to Italy was reduced by almost 3 000 megawatts. This power was transferred onto the other interconnecting lines — Italy-France, Italy-Austria — and this rapidly (within 40 seconds) resulted in the tripping of all lines interconnecting Italy and neighbouring countries.

The fact that the electricity imported into Italy (about 25 % of consumption during off-peak hours) could not be immediately replaced, after the power cut, by Italian-produced power during that time, meant that a blackout ensued across the entire Italian peninsula.

The UCTE is currently investigating the causes of this incident, in particular the possibility that one or more of its members did not comply with the operational standards. It is also inquiring into a possible lack of coordination between the transmission system operators (TSO).

The Italian and French regulators, in collaboration with the Swiss ministry, are also analysing the events.

---
# C_2023321EN.01006401.xml

| 11.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 321/64 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 321/64

---

Action brought on 25 July 2023 — Hofstede Insights v EUIPO — Geert Hofstede (HOFSTEDE INSIGHTS)

(Case T-429/23)

(2023/C 321/71)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Hofstede Insights Oy (Helsinki, Finland) (represented by: A. Sevillano Orbegozo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Geert Hofstede BV (Meppel, Netherlands)

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 trade mark HOFSTEDE INSIGHTS — European Union trade mark application No 18 338 780

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 April 2023 in Case R 2128/2022-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
STATE of North Carolina v. William LOWERY, Jr.

No. 219P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Dec. 15, 2015.

William Lowery, Jr., for Lowery, William (Jr.).

Kimberly N. Callahan, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

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

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 24th of June 2015 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 15th of December 2015."
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

TORRIO SANDERS,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 13-10434

D.C. No. 4:12-cr-00042-CW-1

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Claudia Wilken, Chief District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted September 12, 2014 

San Francisco, California

Before: SCHROEDER and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges, and CURIEL, District

Judge.** 

The government appeals from the dismissal of an indictment charging

Appellee Torrio Sanders as a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18

FILED

SEP 18 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The Honorable Gonzalo P. Curiel, United States District Judge for the

Southern District of California, sitting by designation.
U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). After an extended colloquy with counsel that traced the

history of the matter, the district court found there had been a constitutional

violation. Under the appropriate legal standard, the court made the requisite

findings. There was no clear error.

The appellee’s motion to expand record and/or request for judicial notice is

denied as moot.

AFFIRMED. 

2
STATE v. VALENCIA.

No. COA07-1367.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed June 17, 2008.

Certification Date July 7, 2008.

Appeal from Alleghany (05CRS50370, 05CRS50376).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
# CE2004088EN.01014001.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/140 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/140

---

(2004/C 88 E/0148)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3303/03

by Luigi Vinci (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(3 November 2003)

Subject:   Turkey and latest report of the Human Rights Association of Turkey (IHD)

Subject:

In its latest report, the Human Rights Association of Turkey (IHD) states, following a detailed description of cases, that the number of human rights violations committed by the various state bodies in Turkey over the last six months is equal to the total number of violations for the previous year.

What is the Commission's opinion on this general statement by the IHD, i.e. does it consider the statement to be accurate? Is the Commission aware of all the cases mentioned by the IHD in this report and, more generally, the cases mentioned in the various reports published by the IHD and other Turkish human rights organisations?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(26 November 2003)

(26 November 2003)

The Commission is aware of the report produced by the Turkish Human Rights Association. The Commission receives on a regular basis reports prepared by this Association along with a number of other non-governmental organisations working in the area of human rights. These reports are useful sources of information in assessing the human rights situation in Turkey.

In its Regular Report published on 5 November 2003 (1), the Commission gives a detailed assessment of the reform process underway in Turkey and the impact of the measures taken on the human rights situation.

1

---

(1)  COM(2003) 676 final.

1

---
STATE v. Casey Rafeal TYLER.

No. 263P15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Aug. 20, 2015.

Casey Rafeal Tyler, For Tyler, Casey Rafeal.

Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of N.C.

N. Lorrin Freeman, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 27th of July 2015 by Defendant for Notice of Appeal:

> "Motion Dismissed Ex Mero Motu by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of August 2015."
STATE of North Carolina v. James Michael DESPAIN, II.

No. COA15-685.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Dec. 15, 2015.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Affirmed in Part; Dismissed in Part.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001045560
<NAME> PRT GROUP INC.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                      29,499,000
<SECURITIES>                                14,622,000
<RECEIVABLES>                               14,827,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   334,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            60,229,000
<PP&E>                                      11,098,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,360,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              75,914,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        9,043,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        18,000
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                75,914,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            59,816,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               40,898,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            19,332,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             577,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (378,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   175,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (553,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (553,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.04)


</TABLE>
# CE2004078EN.01039201.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/392 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/392

---

(2004/C 78 E/0415)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1873/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(6 June 2003)

Subject:   Listing requirements

Subject:

Has the Commission made any proposal, or does it intend to make any proposal, that will limit the ability of Member States to legislate for higher corporate governance or transparency requirements than in EU directives and regulations if companies are to be listed on exchanges in their territory? Similarly, does the Commission propose or intend to propose any measure that would circumscribe the listing requirements to be imposed on companies from third countries?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(7 July 2003)

(7 July 2003)

The question raised by the Honourable Member is very similar to the one he already raised as Written Question P-2561/02 (1).

1

The reply given by the Commission to that previous question is also fully applicable to the present one. In addition, the Commission wishes to make the following remarks:

As regards corporate governance, the Communication on Company Law and Corporate Governance adopted by the Commission on 21 May 2003 (2) outlines the approach that the Commission intends to follow in these areas. It includes an Action Plan, prioritised over the short, medium and long term, without pre-empting the approach that will be applied — as a result of the consultation opened until 31 August 2003 — to each initiative announced, this Action Plan concerns directly only European companies.

2

As regards transparency requirements, the Commission assumes that the Honourable Member refers to the recent Commission proposal for a Directive on the harmonisation of transparency requirements with regard to information about issuers whose securities admitted to trading on a regulated market in Member States (3). This proposal covers requirements in relation to the disclosure of periodic and ongoing information about such issuers. It would allow the issuer's home Member State to impose more stringent requirements in this respect, but not the host Member State. With regard to the majority of the bond markets, and with regard to third country issuers of shares or bonds, the home Member State would be the one where the company's bonds are admitted to trading on a regulated market. For the remaining, the home Member State will be the one where the issuer has its registered office, in practice very often the one where the issuer's securities are also admitted to trading on a regulated market. The proposal is currently discussed in the Parliament and in the Council.

3

---

(1)  OJ C 222 E, 18.9.2003, p. 10.

1

(2)  COM(2003) 284 final.

2

(3)  COM(2003) 138 final.

3

---