alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
----

(2004/C 65 E/197)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2592/03

by Gerhard Schmid (PSE) to the Commission

(14 August 2003)

Subject:   Fine for absence of nationality sticker on vehicles in the Czech Republic

For journeys abroad in the Member States of the European Union, the normal European vehicle number plate incorporating the nationality symbol on a blue background is sufficient. However, for journeys in countries which are not members of the Union, an oval nationality sticker is also required, otherwise drivers are liable to be fined. The Czech Republic is among those countries which fine drivers if their vehicle does not display an oval nationality sticker.

Will the Commission open negotiations with the Czech Republic to ensure that the European number plate is already accepted as a nationality identifier in that country before 1 May 2004?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(18 September 2003)

Council Regulation (EC) No 2411/98 of 3 November 1998 on the recognition in intra-Community traffic of the distinguishing sign of the Member State in which motor vehicles and their trailers are registered (1) introduced the so-called ‘European sign’ that Member States must recognise as an alternative to the ‘elliptic sign’ introduced by the Vienna Convention of 1968 (2).

The Vienna Convention was ratified by the Czech Republic and the elliptic sign is still valid. Countries that do not belong to the Union are not bound by the Council Regulation which covers the intra-Community traffic only. Therefore, there is no legal basis for asking the Czech Republic to recognise the European sign before 1 May 2004. Afterwards this country will have to recognise it as a part of the acquis communautaire.

----

(1)OJ L 299, 10.11.1998.

(2)  Vienna Convention on road traffic of 8 November 1968, concluded under the auspices of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe.

----
State of North Carolina v. Tina Benge Mitchell, Defendant.

No. COA16-110

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: August 16, 2016

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 31.3

 

CERTIFICATION

 

I, John J. Reyle, certify that:

 

1.        I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of RAIT Financial Trust;

 

2.        Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.

 

Date:        April 30, 2019

|        |        |                                                        |        |
|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |   |                                                   |   |
|   | By:    | /s/ John J. Reyle                                      |   |
|   |   | Name:  John J. Reyle                         |   |
|   |   | Chief Executive Officer, President and General Counsel |   |
|   |   | (Principal Executive Officer)                          |   |
|   |
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

SEPT 18, 2008

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 07-15029

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 07-60932-CV-WPD

CHARLES MOGFORD, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

versus 

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 

Walter A. McNeil, Secretary, 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, 

Bill McCollum, 

Respondents-Appellees. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

_________________________

(September 18, 2008)

Before MARCUS, WILSON and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
2

PER CURIAM:

Charles Mogford, a Florida prisoner, appeals the dismissal of his petition for

a writ of habeas corpus as barred by the one year statute of limitation. 28 U.S.C. §

2254; Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-

132, 110 Stat. 1214. The district court granted a certificate of appealability to

address “whether [Mogford’s] motion to mitigate under 3.800(c) of the Florida

Rules of Criminal Procedure tolled the one year statute of limitations for his

petition of writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and if so, whether an oral

order denying the motion was not sufficient to re-start the period of limitations.” 

We affirm.

We review de novo the dismissal of a petition as barred by the statute of

limitation. Steed v. Head, 219 F.3d 1298, 1300 (11th Cir. 2000). The Act

provides a one year statute of limitation that begins to run after the latest of four

events, which includes “the date on which the judgment became final . . . .” 

28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). That period can be tolled for “[t]he time during which a

properly filed application for State post-conviction or other collateral review is

pending.” Id. § 2244(d)(2). To qualify as an “application for State post-conviction

or other collateral review,” a pleading must actually seek “review” by making a

good faith request for legal relief from the court. Sibley v. Culliver, 377 F.3d
3

1196, 1200–01 (11th Cir. 2004). 

Mogford’s argument that his post-conviction motion tolled the statute of

limitation is foreclosed by our precedent. Mogford moved to reduce his sentence

based on assistance he provided to the government, his lack of a violent criminal

record, and “sentence manipulation” by the prosecutor. See Fla. R. Crim. P.

3.800(c). Mogford’s motion, which was a plea for leniency and was not a

challenge to the legality of his sentence, did not toll the limitation period. See

Alexander v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corr., 523 F.3d 1291, 1297 (11th Cir. 2008). The

district court correctly concluded that Mogford’s petition is time-barred.

AFFIRMED.
# C_2008223EN.01004201.xml

| 30.8.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 223/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 223/42

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 4 July 2008 — Wegenbouwmaatschappij J. Heijmans v Commission

(Case T-358/06) (1)

1

(Action for annulment - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Action brought by an undertaking referred to in the reasons for a decision not addressed to it - Lack of interest in bringing proceedings - Inadmissible)

(2008/C 223/71)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Wegenbouwmaatschappij J. Heijmans (Rosmalen, Netherlands) (represented by: M. Smeets and A. Van den Oord, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Bouquet and A. Nijenhuis, Agents, assisted by F. Wijckmans, F. Tuyschaever and L. Gyselen, lawyers)

Defendant:

Re:

Action for annulment of Commission Decision 2007/523/EC decision of 13 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC (Case COMP/38.456 — Bitumen — Netherlands) or, in the alternative, a reduction of the fine imposed on Heijmans NV and Hejmans Infrastructur BV.

Operative part of the order

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Wegenbouwmaatschappij J. Heijmans BV to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Wegenbouwmaatschappij J. Heijmans BV to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 20, 27.1.2007.

1

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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                       5,598,648
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,194,315
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (13,405)
<INVENTORY>                                  3,237,156
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            11,166,890
<PP&E>                                         881,631
<DEPRECIATION>                               (289,881)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              11,860,804
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,016,500
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        34,035
<OTHER-SE>                                  10,697,203
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                11,860,804
<SALES>                                      4,056,884
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,128,687
<CGS>                                        1,856,547
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,164,723
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,517
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,307
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (899,407)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (414,358)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (485,049)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (485,049)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.19)
        


</TABLE>
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3656 

To amend the Federal Home Loan Bank Act to expand the purposes of 

advances and collateral available to community development financial 

institutions. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 5, 2013 

Mr. ELLISON (for himself, Mr. STIVERS, Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New 

York, and Mr. DELANEY) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To amend the Federal Home Loan Bank Act to expand 

the purposes of advances and collateral available to community development financial institutions. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘The Small Business 

5 and Community Investments Expansion Act of 2013’’. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3656 IH

1 SEC. 2. EXPANDING THE PURPOSES OF ADVANCES AND 

2 COLLATERAL AVAILABLE TO COMMUNITY DE3 VELOPMENT FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS. 

4 Section 10(a) of the Federal Home Loan Bank Act 

5 (12 U.S.C. 1430(a)) is amended— 

6 (1) in paragraph (2)(B), by inserting ‘‘or com7 munity development financial institution (as defined 

8 in section 103 of the Riegle Community Develop9 ment and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994 (12 

10 U.S.C. 4702))’’ after ‘‘community financial institu11 tion’’; and 

12 (2) in paragraph (3)(E), by inserting ‘‘or com13 munity development financial institution (as defined 

14 in section 103 of the Riegle Community Develop15 ment and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994 (12 

16 U.S.C. 4702))’’ after ‘‘community financial institu17 tion’’. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 32

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Titan
Technologies, Inc. (the "Company") for the period ended October 31, 2004, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, the undersigned, in the capacity and on the date indicated below,
hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

     a)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or
          15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934: and

     b)   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of the Company.



Date December 20, 2004                  /s/ Ronald L. Wilder
                                        ------------------------------
                                        Ronald L. Wilder,  President
                                        (Chief  Executive  Officer)
                                        (Chief  Financial  Officer)
Re: State v. Mario Andrette McNeill

446A13-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 13, 2016

Mr. Benjamin Dowling-Sendor, Mr. Andrew DeSimone, Mr. Daniel Shatz, Assistant Appellate Defenders, Mr. G. Glenn Gerding, Attorney at Law, For McNeill, Mario Andrette

Mr. Robert C. Montgomery, Ms. Anne M. Middleton, Special Deputy Attorney Generals, Mr. William West, District Attorney, For State of North Carolina

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 9th of June 2016 by State of NC:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 13th of June 2016."

State of NC shall have up to and including the 15th day of August 2016 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
Exhibit 23.1

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Forms S-3 No.333-121393, No. 333-110581 and
No. 333-114760 and Forms S-8 No. 033-79720, No. 033-79722, No. 033-94768, No. 333-05613
No.333-05615 and No. 333-109767) of Point Therapeutics, Inc. and in the related Prospectus of our reports dated March 8, 2005, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements of Point Therapeutics, Inc., Point Therapeutics, Inc.'s management's assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, and
the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Point Therapeutics, Inc., included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31,
2004.

| |  | /s/ Ernst & Young LLP
| |  | ---------------------

Boston, Massachusetts
March 10, 2005

---



QuickLinks
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 9, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136093 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

Justices 

v SC: 136093 

 COA: 282359 

Wayne CC: 90-000966-FH

ANTHONY CORDELL POWERS,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 15, 2008 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). 

s0828 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

September 9, 2008 

 Clerk
# C_2010011EN.01001901.xml

| 16.1.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 11/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.1.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 11/19

---

Order of the President of the Court of 11 August 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’Appel de Bruxelles (Belgium)) — AXA Belgium SA v État Belge, Administration de la TVA, de l’enregistrement et des domains (État Belge), Administration de l’inspection spéciale des impôts, inspection de Mons 3 (État Belge)

(Case C-168/07) (1)

1

2010/C 11/31

Language of the case: French

Language of the case: French

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 129, 9.6.2007.

1

---
# C_2009180EN.01000701.xml

| 1.8.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 180/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 180/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 June 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands

(Case C-521/07) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Agreement on the European Economic Area - Article 40 - Free movement of capital - Discrimination in the treatment of dividends paid by Netherlands companies - Deduction at source - Exemption - Beneficiary companies established in Member States of the Community - Beneficiary companies established in Iceland or Norway)

2009/C 180/10

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. van Nuffel and R. Lyal, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: C.M. Wissels and D.J.M. de Grave, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Breach of Article 40 EEA — Dividends paid to companies established in Norway or Iceland from withholding tax on dividends not exempted under the same conditions as dividends paid to Netherlands companies

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | By not exempting dividends paid by Netherlands companies to companies established in Iceland or Norway from deduction at source of the tax on dividends under the same conditions as dividends paid to Netherlands companies or companies of other Member States of the Community, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 40 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area. |
| --- | --- |

1.

By not exempting dividends paid by Netherlands companies to companies established in Iceland or Norway from deduction at source of the tax on dividends under the same conditions as dividends paid to Netherlands companies or companies of other Member States of the Community, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 40 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area.

| 2. | The Kingdom of the Netherlands is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Kingdom of the Netherlands is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 37, 09.02.2008.

1

---
FAIRES, et al. v. STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, et al.

No. 84A16-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 30, 2016.

Deborah R. Stagner, Raleigh, for Faires, Sabra, et al.

Alexander McC. Peters, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State Board of Elections, et al.

Michael Crowell, Raleigh, for Faires, Sabra, et al.

Stephen G. Rawson, Raleigh, for Faires, Sabra, et al.

Melissa L. Trippe, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State Board of Elections, et al.

Amar Majmundar, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State Board of Elections, et al.

John F. Maddrey, Solicitor General, for State Board of Elections, et al.

Elizabeth A. Fisher, Assistant Attorney General, for State Board of Elections, et al.

Neal A. Ramee, Raleigh, for Faires, Sabra, et al.

John V. Orth, for John V. Orth.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 30th of March 2016 by John V. Orth for leave to file Amicus Curiae Brief:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 30th of March 2016."

Unless already submitted, the Amicus Brief shall be submitted to the court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 28(i).

EDMUNDS, J. recused.
1 The Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon, Chie f Judge, United States District Court for the District of Nebraska. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 06-3315

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Nebraska. Priscilla Cordova, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: February 5, 2008 Filed: February 8, 2008

___________ Before BYE, RILEY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Priscilla Cordova challenges the 30-month prison sentence the district court 1 imposed after revoking her supervised release. For reversal, Cordova argues that the district court abused its discretion by failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, including the Chapter 7 sentencing recommendations, and by giving too much weight to her original sentence. We affirm.-2- We conclude that Cordova’s sentence, which is within the statutory maximum, is not unreasonable, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (authorizing up to 3 years imprisonment upon revocation of supervised release where orig inal offense is Class B felony); United States v. Mathis , 451 F.3d 939, 941 (8th Cir. 2006) (review for reasonableness is akin to review for abuse of discretion); United States v. Tyson , 413 F.3d 824, 825 (8th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (review of revocation sentences is for unreasonableness); United States v. Haack , 403 F.3d 997, 1003-04 (8th Cir. 2005) (lis ting circumstances in which abuse of discretion may occur).
Specifically, the updated presentence report with the advisory Guidelines range was before the court; the same district j udge presided over Co rdova’s original and revocation sentencing hearings; the court was aware of Cordova’s history and characteristics, including her pattern of re lapsing on drugs when not supervised; and the court properly considered Cordova’s original lenient sentence. SeeUnited States v. Larison , 432 F.3d 921, 923 (8th Cir. 2006) (distric t court need not mechanically list every § 3553(a) consideration when sentencing defendant upon revocation of supervised release); United States v. Cotton , 399 F.3d 913, 916 (8th Cir. 2005) (court properly considered that defendant receive d substantially reduced original sentence in imposing revocation sentence in excess of suggested Guidelines range); United States v. Franklin , 397 F.3d 604, 607 (8th Cir. 2005) (familiarity with defendant’s history and characteristics is implied wh en same judge presided over original sentencing hearing and revocation hearing; district court’s awareness of defendant’s repeated violations of release condition supported inference that court was aware of relevant § 3553(a) factors).
Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________
Exhibit 21.1

SUBSIDIARIES OF RADICA GAMES LIMITED




                                                      State or Country
Name of Subsidiary                                    in Which Organized
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

UNITED STATES

Radica Enterprises Ltd                                Nevada
(Operates as Radica USA Ltd)
  - Leda Media Products Ltd (dormant)                 UK
  - Radica Canada Ltd                                 Canada

Disc, Inc.                                            Nevada
(Operates as Radica Innovations)
  - Radica Technology (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd.             China


INTERNATIONAL

Radica Limited                                        Hong Kong
  -  Radica China Ltd                                 British Virgin Islands
      - Dongguan Radica Games Manufactory Co. Ltd     People's Republic of China
  -  RadMex S.A. de C.V. (dormant)                    Mexico

Radica Sales (HK) Ltd                                 Hong Kong

Radica (Macao Commercial Offshore) Limited            Macao

Radica Innovations (UK) Ltd                           UK

Radica Europe Ltd                                     UK
  -  Radica UK Ltd                                    UK