alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# CE2004070EN.01019501.xml

| 20.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 70/195 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 70/195

---

(2004/C 70 E/208)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3287/03

by Brice Hortefeux (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 November 2003)

Subject:   Europe Houses

Subject:

The concept of democratic deficit is used mainly to highlight how the European Union suffers from a lack of democracy and appears inaccessible to citizens as a result of the complex way in which it functions. It conveys the feeling that the Community's institutional system is still rather opaque to the uninitiated.

One of the tasks assigned to the Europe Houses on their founding was to dissipate this idea of the distance and inaccessibility of the Community's institutions. Their primary aim was to strive to bring the European people and the institutions closer together by providing information and removing the air of mystery surrounding the working of the Community.

It cannot be denied that, in this sense, they perform this role most worthily on a daily basis, displaying competence and energy. I was all the more amazed to discover, therefore, that the Commission is preparing simply to withdraw their operating grant for 2004, with notice given on 29 September. Aside from the organisational difficulties this cut will bring (particularly with regard to the employment of convinced young Europeans who have invested for years in this great enterprise), thought must also be given to the impact on the European Union's image. As the EU debates its future Constitution (and the procedures for its entry into force) and prepares to welcome 10 new members (whose accession is sometimes a cause of worry among citizens) and Europeans are called upon once again to express their opinions in the European elections next June (and we are all aware of how difficult it is to persuade voters to take part in this ballot), the European Commission is suddenly washing its hands of the EU's largest information network in the Member States.

As the reasons behind this decision are difficult to grasp, can the Commission shed some light on the matter?

---
STATE v. Carlton Washington TOMLINSON.

No. 61P16-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Feb. 25, 2016.

James R. Grant, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Tomlinson, Carlton Washington.

Matthew Liles, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Robert A. Evans, Jr., District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 25th of February 2016 by Defendant for Temporary Stay:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 25th of February 2016."
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1996
<CASH>                                       4,606,296
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                      14,737,946
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                               250,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 10,954,223
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                    100,735,790
<ALLOWANCE>                                    729,711
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             140,524,063
<DEPOSITS>                                 126,564,421
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          2,330,680
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        13,868
<OTHER-SE>                                  11,615,094
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             140,524,063
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              2,786,812
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              252,642
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             3,039,454
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             604,049
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 597
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        2,434,808
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  110,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              2,232,289
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                818,621
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     506,968
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   506,968
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.35
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.32
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                       0
<LOANS-NON>                                     12,065
<LOANS-PAST>                                   535,030
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                 95,234
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               671,807
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   62,735
<RECOVERIES>                                    10,639
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              729,711
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           729,711
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                  EXHIBIT 11.01

                       XCELLENET, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

               Computation of Earnings Per Share of Common Stock
             For the Years Ended December 31, 1997, 1996 and 1995
                   (amounts in thousands, except per share)

                                                   For the Year Ended
                                                       December 31,
                                                --------------------------
                                                  1997     1996     1995
                                                -------- -------- --------
Basic weighted average number of common
  shares outstanding                               8,035    7,229    7,387

Add  - Shares of common stock assumed
  issued upon exercise of stock options
  using the "treasury stock" method as it
  applies to the computation of
  diluted earnings per share                         657      686    1,093
                                                -------- -------- --------

Diluted weighted average shares outstanding        8,692    7,915    8,480
                                                 =======  =======  =======

Net earnings used in the computation of basic
and diluted earnings per share                    $3,145   $    -   $3,802
                                                 =======  =======  =======
Earnings per share:

    Basic                                          $0.39   $    -    $0.51
                                                 =======  =======  =======

    Diluted                                        $0.36   $    -    $0.45
                                                 =======  =======  =======
STATE of North Carolina v. Robert Lee THACKER.

No. 351P04-5.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Nov. 5, 2015.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 13th of October 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:

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

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 9, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136042 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: 136042 

 COA: 282660 

Kalamazoo CC: 04-001640-FH 

ANTONIO DORTCH,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 21, 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). 

KELLY, J., would grant leave to appeal for the reasons set forth in her dissenting 

statement in People v Conway, 474 Mich 1140 (2006). 

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_2011311EN.01003202.xml

| 22.10.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 311/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.10.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 311/32

---

Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2011 — Alliance One International v Commission

(Case T-25/06) (1)

1

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Italian market for the purchase and first processing of raw tobacco - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Price-fixing and market sharing - Attributability of the unlawful conduct - Fines)

2011/C 311/54

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Alliance One International, Inc. (Danville, Virginia, United States) (represented by: C. Osti and A. Prastaro, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented: initially by É. Gippini Fournier and F. Amato, and subsequently by E. Gippini Fournier and N. Khan, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

APPLICATION for partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2005) 4012 final of 20 October 2005 relating to a proceeding under Article 81(1) [EC] (Case COMP/C.38.281/B.2 — Raw tobacco — Italy) and, in the alternative, application for a reduction in the fine imposed on Alliance One International.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Alliance One International, Inc. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Alliance One International, Inc. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 60, 11.3.2006.

1

---
STATE of North Carolina v. Brandon Jwan LEGRANDE, Defendant.

No. COA15-638.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

March 1, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Affirmed.
** **

**EXHIBIT 32**

 

 

 

CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), the undersignedcertifies that (1) this Annual Report of W. R. Grace & Co. (the “Company”)on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2007, as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (this “Report”),fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and (2) the informationcontained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| /s/ Alfred E. Festa                                |
|----------------------------------------------------|
| President and Chief Executive Officer              |
|                                               |
| /s/ Robert M. Tarola                               |
| Senior Vice President and Chief Financial  Officer |
|                                               |

Date: February 29,2008

 

A signed original of this written statementrequired by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will beretained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commissionor its staff upon request.

 

 

----
Order filed, May 22, 2015.

 In The

Court of Appeals 

For The

First District of Texas 

____________

NO. 01-15-00358-CR

BOBBY JOE JONES, JR., Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 22nd District Court

Hays County, Texas

Trial Court Case CR-13-0430

ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case was due May 11, 2015. See Tex. R. App. P. 

35.1. The court has not received a request to extend time for filing the record. The 

record has not been filed with the court. Because the reporter’s record has not been filed 

timely, we issue the following order.

We order the official (or substitute) court reporter, to file the record in this appeal, 

if any, within 30 days of the date of this order.

/s/ Rebeca Huddle

Acting individually
Exhibit 32.1

                            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 Annual Report of Trans Energy,  Inc. (the "Company")
on Form  10-KSB for the  period  ending  December  31,  2003,  as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Robert
I. Richards , Chief Executive  Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of
2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

          (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 result of operations of
          the Company.


/s/   ROBERT I. RICHARDS
------------------------------
Robert I. Richards
Chief Executive Officer
April 2, 2004

     A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906, or
     other document  authenticating,  acknowledging,  or otherwise  adopting the
     signature that appears in typed form within the electronic  version of this
     written  statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by
     the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange  Commission or its
     staff upon  request.  The foregoing  certifications  are  accompanying  the
     Company's Form 10-KSB solely pursuant to section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley
     Act of 2002  (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350,  chapter 63 of title
     18,  United  States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-KSB
     or as a separate disclosure document.
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 176 (Tuesday, September 13, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 54036]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-18219]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting Notice

AGENCY: Election Assistance Commission (EAC).

ACTION:  Notice of Public Meeting Agenda.

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

DATE AND TIME: Tuesday, September 27, 2005, 10 a.m.-12 noon.

PLACE: U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 1225 New York Ave., NW., 
Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20005 (Metro Stop: Metro Center).

AGENDA: The Commission will receive the following reports: Title II 
Requirements Payments Update; public comments received regarding the 
proposed Voluntary Voting System Guidelines; and updates on other 
administrative matters. The Commission will receive presentations on 
the Election Day Survey Report.
    This meeting will be open to the public.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bryan Whitener, Telephone: (202) 566-
3100.

Thomas R. Wilkey,
Executive Director, U.S. Election Assistance Commission.
[FR Doc. 05-18219 Filed 9-9-05; 11:02 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-KF-M
# C_2009180EN.01004401.xml

| 1.8.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 180/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 180/44

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 June 2009 — Vivartia v OHIM — Kraft Foods Schweiz (milko ΔΕΛΤΑ)

(Case T-204/06) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark milko ΔΕΛΤΑ - Earlier Community figurative mark MILKA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

2009/C 180/80

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Vivartia ABEE Proïonton Diatrofis kai Ypiresion Estiasis, formerly Delta Protypos Viomichania Galaktos AE (Tavros, Greece) (represented by: P.-P. Kanellopoulos and V. Kanellopoulos, lawyers)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Kraft Foods Schweiz Holding AG (Zurich, Switzerland) (represented by: T. de Haan and P. Péters, lawyers)

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

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 June 2006 (Case R 540/2005-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Kraft Foods Schweiz Holding AG and Delta Protypos Viomichania Galaktos AE.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Vivartia ABEE Proïonton Diatrofis kai Ypiresion Estiasis to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Vivartia ABEE Proïonton Diatrofis kai Ypiresion Estiasis to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 224, 16.9.2006.

1

---
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 17, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136423 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

JOAN B. JACKSON,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

Justices 

v SC: 136423 

 COA: 269244 

Charlevoix CC: 04-057520-CH 

ESTATE OF RONALD B. GREEN,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 1, 2008 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is GRANTED. The parties shall 

include among the issues to be briefed: (1) whether a partition action filed by an 

individual who jointly owns real estate with other persons survives the individual’s death, 

if the form of joint ownership is an ordinary joint tenancy that does not expressly grant 

rights of survivorship; (2) if so, whether the deed nevertheless automatically transfers to 

the surviving owner upon the deceased owner’s death if a partition order had not been 

entered before the death; (3) when a cause of action accrues, and the statute of limitations 

begin to run, for breach of verbal loan that did not include explicit terms for repayment; 

(4) whether the lender must demand payment on such a loan within a specified period 

after the loan is made; and (5) whether the statute of limitations barred plaintiff’s suit on 

her loan(s) to the decedent. 

s0910 

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 17, 2008 

 Clerk
# C_2009006EN.01004401.xml

| 10.1.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.1.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/44

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 4 November 2008 — Marcuccio v Commission

(Case F-41/06) (1)

1

(Staff cases - Officials - Social security - Insurance against the risk of accident and occupational disease - Invalidity - Retirement on the ground of invalidity - Statement of reasons - Annulment)

(2009/C 6/88)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: L. Garofalo, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and C. Berardis-Kayser, acting as Agents, assisted by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

First, action for annulment of the Commission decision by which the applicant was retired on grounds of invalidity and of a series of measures connected to that decision and, secondly, a claim for damages

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | annuls the decision of the Commission of the European Communities of 30 May 2005 by which Mr Marcuccio was retired on grounds of invalidity; |
| --- | --- |

1.

annuls the decision of the Commission of the European Communities of 30 May 2005 by which Mr Marcuccio was retired on grounds of invalidity;

| 2. | orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay Mr Marcuccio the sum of EUR 3 000; |
| --- | --- |

2.

orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay Mr Marcuccio the sum of EUR 3 000;

| 3. | dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

3.

dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 4. | orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay two thirds of Mr Marcuccio's costs as well as to bear its own costs; |
| --- | --- |

4.

orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay two thirds of Mr Marcuccio's costs as well as to bear its own costs;

| 5. | orders Mr Marcuccio to bear one third of his own costs. |
| --- | --- |

5.

orders Mr Marcuccio to bear one third of his own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 131, 3.6.2006, p. 54.

1

---
State of North Carolina v. Maurice Shepherd

No. 139P16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 9, 2016

Maurice Shepherd, for Shepherd, Maurice.

Sherri Lawrence, Assistant Attorney General, Valerie Mitchell Asbell, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

**ORDER**

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 18th of April 2016 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Northampton County, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court of that County:

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

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 18th of April 2016 by Defendant to Proceed In Forma Pauperis:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of June 2016."

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 18th of April 2016 by Defendant to Appoint Counsel:

*378"Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of June 2016."