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

(2004/C 33 E/257)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2315/03

by Paul Rübig (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 July 2003)

Subject:   Restriction of market access of plasma-derived medicinal products in Australia

In Australia, a monopoly arrangement (The Plasma Fractionation Agreement) allows CSL Limited to be the sole supplier of Australian plasma-derived medicinal products. This is despite that fact that CSL Limited enjoys the same freedom of trade as European manufacturers in the European Union and in other major markets.

The safety standards under which plasma-derived medicinal products are being manufactured and distributed do not differ between CSL Limited and other major manufacturers whose products are being restricted from the Australian market. Indeed, another severe discrimination exists in the fact that plasma-derived medicinal products originating from non-Australian sources have to demonstrate improvements in terms of efficacy and safety to gain market access.

Does the Commission not agree that such a policy is a severe barrier to trade and market access by discriminating against products that are being manufactured following state-of-the-art technology and authorised to the market in Member States of the European Union? And does the Commission not agree that this issue should be raised and discussed at the next WTO round in Cancun in October 2003?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(1 September 2003)

By way of initial comment, the Commission points out that all plasma-derived products approved by the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products (EMEA) for marketing in the Union comply with the strictest safety requirements, regardless of their origin. The basic safety of plasma-derived products is ensured by a wide variety of measures. Given the similar safety and quality requirements applied in Australia and in the Union there seems to be no public health justification for measures discriminating against European products.

The Commission is aware of the situation and agrees that the Plasma Fractionation Agreement in Australia raises concerns in regard to market access.

According to the Commission's understanding, access to the Australian market for plasma-derived products produced outside Australia is only permitted in exceptional circumstances.

Given the World Trade Organisation (WTO) provisions, WTO members should ensure that products imported from the territory of any member should be accorded treatment no less favourable than that accorded to like products of national origin and to like products originating in any other country.

The Commission is currently analysing the situation in order to determine the exact nature and effects of the above mentioned Fractionation Agreement, in particular the economic impact on European manufacturers. The issue as to whether the market conditions constitute a breach of the WTO rules requires further analysis.

Subject to the results of this analysis, the Commission will take the appropriate steps, e.g. raise the subject with the Australian authorities or in the appropriate WTO Committee.

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

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000931755
<NAME> AEI INCOME & GROWTH FUND XXI LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                       4,726,867
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  125,589
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,852,456
<PP&E>                                      15,259,196
<DEPRECIATION>                               (338,122)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              19,773,530
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          608,330
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  19,165,200
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                19,773,530
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,098,273
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  437,355
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                703,500
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            703,500
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   703,500
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    29.08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    29.08
        


</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CertificationPursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63**

**of Title18 of the United States Code**

 

I, Michael T.Willis, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C § 1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in my capacity as an officer of Westaff, Inc.(the “Company”), that, to the best of my knowledge;

 

(1)           TheQuarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period endedJanuary 24, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission onthe date hereof (the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

 

(2)           Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

Date:                    March 16,2009

 

 
| /s/ Michael T. Willis         |   |
|-------------------------------|--------|
| Michael T. Willis             |   |
| Westaff, Inc.            |   |
| Chief Executive Officer       |   |
| (Principal Executive Officer) |   |

 

A signed original of this written statement required by § 906 has beenprovided to Westaff, Inc. and will be retained by Westaff, Inc. andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
# Council Decision (EU) 2015/312Show full title

Council Decision (EU) 2015/312 of 24 February 2015 appointing a German member of the European Economic and Social Committee

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Council Decision (EU) 2015/312                     

# of 24 February 2015

# appointing a German member of the European Economic and Social Committee

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 302 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal of the German Government,

Having regard to the opinion of the European Commission,

Whereas:

(1)On 13 September 2010 the Council adopted Decision 2010/570/EU, Euratom appointing the members of the European Economic and                              Social Committee for the period from 21 September 2010 to 20 September 2015(1).

(2)A member's seat on the European Economic and Social Committee has become vacant following the end of the term of office of                              Mr Horst MUND,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

# Article 1U.K.

Dr Dirk BERGRATH, *Leiter des EU-Verbindungsbüros der IG Metall* is hereby appointed as a member of the European Economic and Social Committee for the remainder of the current term of office,                     which runs until 20 September 2015.                  

# Article 2U.K.

This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.

Done at Brussels, 24 February 2015.

*For the Council*                            

*The President*                            

E. Rinkēvičs                            

1

OJ L 251, 25.9.2010, p. 8.
State of North Carolina v. John Wesley Hearne

No. 148P16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 9, 2016

John W. Hearne, Pro Per.

Kathleen N. Bolton, Assistant Attorney General, N. Lorrin Freeman, District Attorney, For State of North Carolina.

**ORDER**

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 20th of April 2016 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:

> "Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of June 2016."
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 9, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136667 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: 136667 

 COA: 283594 

Lapeer CC: 07-009429-AR 

MARK RYAN NICKERSON,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 6, 2008 order of 

the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that 

the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

t0828 

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
**Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 23 September 2009 – Phildar v OHIM – Comercial Jacinto Parera
(FILDOR)**

**(Case T-99/06)**

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the Community word mark FILDOR – Earlier national semi-figurative mark PHILDAR – Earlier national word mark FILDOR – Earlier international word and semi-figurative marks PHILDAR – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Articles 8(1)(b), 62 and 73 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Articles 8(1)(b), 64 and 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services
– Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 33, 68-85)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ACTION against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 January 2006 (Case R 245/2004‐2) relating to opposition proceedings between Phildar SA and Comercial Jacinto Parera, SA. |

**Information relating to the case**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| Applicant for the Community trade mark: | Comercial Jacinto Parera, SA |
| Community trade mark sought: | Word mark FILDOR for goods in Classes 22 to 26 – Application No 831834 |
| Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: | Phildar SA |
| Mark or sign cited in opposition: | National and international word and figurative marks FILDOR and PHILDAR for goods in Classes 22 to 26 |
| Decision of the Opposition Division: | Opposition upheld |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Annulment of the Opposition Division’s decision |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 16 January 2006 (Case R 245/2004‐2); |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders OHIM to pay the costs. |
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-18-00328-CR

IVAN HOLBERT, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

§

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from the 431st District Court

of Denton County (F17-1271-431)

August 28, 2019

Opinion by Justice Kerr

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial 

court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By _/s/ Elizabeth Kerr__________________

 Justice Elizabeth Kerr
Jamie Lee STEPHENSON v. STATE of North Carolina, Thomas Locke, Superior Court Judge, Susan Doyle, District Attorney, Michelle Ball, Clerk of Superior Court.

No. 48P16.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 17, 2016.

Jamie Lee Stephenson, for Stephenson, Jamie Lee.

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

Susan I. Doyle, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Petitioner on the 10th of February 2016 in this matter for a writ of mandamus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Johnston County:

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 17th of March 2016."
**Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 12 March 2008 – Compagnie générale de diététique v OHIM (GARUM)**

**(Case T-341/06)**

Community trade mark – Application for Community trade mark GARUM – Absolute ground for refusal – Relevant public – Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of any distinctive character (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 37-38, 44-45)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 September 2006 (Case R 1401/2005-1) concerning application for registration of the word sign GARUM as a Community trade mark. |

**Information relating to the case**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| Applicant for the Community trade mark: | Compagnie générale de diététique SAS |
| Community trade mark sought: | Word mark GARUM for goods in Class 29 – Application No 3501939 |
| Decision of the examiner: | Registration refused |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Appeal dismissed |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 7 September 2006 (Case R 1401/2005-1); |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders OHIM to pay its own costs and the costs of Compagnie générale de diététique SAS. |
# CE2004078EN.01076001.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/760 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/760

---

(2004/C 78 E/0807)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2839/03

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(25 September 2003)

Subject:   Place of Iraq in the UN and position of the EU

Subject:

Member States of the UN have particular characteristics (sovereignty, legitimacy etc.) clearly not possessed by Iraq, which is currently under occupation. The Provisional Government Council of Iraq has been appointed by the occupying authorities without any form of legitimising mechanism but also without any of the powers which would enable it to represent the country at the UN. As an occupied country, Iraq is no longer a state within the meaning of international law and its membership of the UN should be suspended in accordance with the precedent established with Cambodia between 1979 and 1989, following the intervention of Vietnamese troops, when the government controlled by the Vietnamese occupying forces was not accepted at the UN General Assembly. The suspension of Iraq's membership of the UN should last until elections have been held in the presence of UN observers.

Has the Council considered the matter of Iraq's seat at the UN in the context of Article 19, paragraph 2 (Title V) of the EU Treaty with a view to the forthcoming session of the UN General Assembly? What are the thoughts of the EU Presidency in this regard? Is there agreement on this matter, within the meaning of the above article of the EU Treaty, among the Member States which are members of the UN Security Council as to the position they will adopt in the Accreditation Committee under Rule 28 of the UN General Assembly's Rules of Procedure? What is the current status of diplomatic relations between the EU, and its Member States, and Iraq as an occupied country?

Reply

(4 March 2004)

(4 March 2004)

The Council informs the Honourable Parliamentarian that it has not discussed the question as to Iraq's seat in the United Nations.

---
# C_2008313EN.01003303.xml

| 6.12.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 313/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/33

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 8 October 2008 — Gippini Fournier v Commission

(Case T-23/05) (1)

1

(Action for annulment - Action for damages - Staff case - Promotion - Award of priority points - Act not capable of being appealed - Preparatory acts - Inadmissibility)

(2008/C 313/60)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Éric Gippini Fournier (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: A. Theissen and, subsequently, by F. Ruggeri Laderchi, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Berscheid and V. Joris, Agents, and D. Waelbroek, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

First, annulment of the Commission decisions not to award the applicant any priority points under the 2003 promotion procedure; to reject his appeal to the Promotions Committee seeking the award of priority points of any description; and to refuse to award priority points for work in the interest of the institution and, second, a claim for damages.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | Each party is ordered to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Each party is ordered to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 82, 2.4.2005.

1

---
Brandon ARMSTRONG, Plaintiff, v. Amanda Sue PENTZ, Defendant.

No. COA15-216.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

March 15, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Affirmed.
Exhibit 32

STATEMENT PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ENACTED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In
connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2004 (the "Quarterly Report") of Edison Mission Energy (the "Company"),
and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as enacted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned certifies, to the best of his knowledge and belief, that:

| |  | /s/THOMAS R. MCDANIELThomas R. McDaniel
Chief Executive Officer
Edison Mission Energy
| |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |  |                                                                                      
| |  | /s/KEVIN M. SMITHKevin M. Smith
Chief Financial Officer
Edison Mission Energy        

This
statement accompanies the Quarterly Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be
deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Edison Mission Energy and will be retained by Edison Mission Energy and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---



QuickLinks
Nies v. Town of Emerald Isle

409PA15-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 25, 2016

J. David Breemer, Attorney at Law, Keith P. Anthony, Attorney at Law, Durham, For Nies, Gregory P., et al.

Brian E. Edes, Attorney at Law, Wilmington, Norwood P. Blanchard, III, Attorney at Law, For Town of Emerald Isle.

Elliot M. Engstrom, Attorney at Law, For Civitas Institute Center for Law and Freedom.

Stephanie H. Autry, Attorney at Law, George B. Autry, Jr., Attorney at Law, Raleigh, Robert H. Thomas, Attorney at Law, Pro Hac Vice, For Owners' Counsel of America, et al.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 23rd of May 2016 by Robert H. Thomas for Admission Pro Hac Vice:

*439"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 25th of May 2016."
SCHEFFER v. DALTON.

No. 386P15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 17, 2016.

Michael J. Levine, Mooresville, for Scheffer, John James, et al.

William F. Lipscomb, Wilkesboro, for Dalton, Nathaniel Eugene.

Michael J. Greer, Mooresville, for Scheffer, John James.

Ann C. Rowe, Winston-Salem, for NC Association of Defense Attorneys.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 11th of March 2016 by NC Association of Defense Attorneys for leave to file Amicus Curiae Brief:

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

368PA15-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 27, 2016

Anita B. Hunt, Attorney at Law, For Wilkes, Johnnie.

Matthew P. Blake, Attorney at Law, Cary, For City of Greenville, et al.

J. William Crone, IV, Attorney at Law, J. Timothy Wilson, Attorney at Law, Bruce A. Hamilton, Attorney at Law, Tracey L. Jones, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, Allison B. Schafer, Legal Counsel/Director of Policy, Christine Teresa Scheef, Attorney at Law, Kimberly S. Hibbard, General Counsel, For N.C. Association of Self-Insurers, et al.

M. Duane Jones, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, Angela Farag Craddock, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, For N.C. Association of Defense Attorneys, et al.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 26th of May 2016 by Defendant to Amend New Brief:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 27th of May 2016."
Robert D. SMITH, Lisanne J. Smith, and Taylor Smith Fine Art, LLC, a North Carolina Limited Liability Company, Plaintiffs, v. Cynthia B. TAYLOR, Defendant and Third Party Plaintiff, v. Robert D. Smith, as a member of RSFA, LLC, a North Carolina Limited Liability Company, Third Party Defendant.

No. COA15-1226.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Aug. 2, 2016.

**CASE REPORTED WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.