alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# CE2004065EN.01006402.xml

| 13.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 65/64 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 65/64

---

(2004/C 65 E/069)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1213/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(2 April 2003)

Subject:   Use of funds under the Framework for action on sustainable urban development in the European Union by the municipality of Livorno

Subject:

In September 2002, the monitoring committee of the Italian Ministry for Economic Affairs issued a report on the spending of EU funds.

The report reveals the alarming slowness and inefficiency with which EU funds are allocated to projects by some regional authorities.

The grave concerns about the inadequate use of European funds by local authorities have frequently been echoed by the Commission.

Bearing in mind that some local authorities, such as the municipality of Livorno, urgently need to use European funds to promote sustainable urban development,

can the Commission state:

| 1. | whether the municipality of Livorno has submitted projects for the Framework for action on sustainable urban development in the European Union? |
| --- | --- |

1.

whether the municipality of Livorno has submitted projects for the Framework for action on sustainable urban development in the European Union?

| 2. | whether the municipality of Livorno has secured funding for these projects? |
| --- | --- |

2.

whether the municipality of Livorno has secured funding for these projects?

| 3. | whether this funding has been used? |
| --- | --- |

3.

whether this funding has been used?

---
EXHIBIT 32

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350 (as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002),  I, the  undersigned,  hereby certify that to the best of my knowledge
the  Quarterly  Report  on Form  10-QSB  of  Titan  Technologies,  Inc.  for the
quarterly  period ended April 30, 2003 (the  "Report")  fully  complies with the
requirements  of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the  Securities  Exchange Act of 1934
and that  the  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of operations of the
Company.




                                                     /s/ Ronald L. Wilder
                                                     ---------------------------
                                                     Ronald L. Wilder, President
                                                     (Chief Executive Officer)
                                                     (Chief Financial Officer)
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 32(b)

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

In connection with the Annual Report of Ohio State Bancshares, 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,
Todd M. Wanner, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as enacted 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
Company.

/s/ Todd M. Wanner

Todd M. Wanner, CPA
Chief Financial Officer
March 29, 2004
STATE v. Roddie P. DUMAS.

No. 332P15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Nov. 5, 2015.

Roddie P. Dumas, Bennettesville, for Dumas, Roddie P.

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

R. Andrew Murray, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 25th of September 2015 by Defendant for Writ of Error of Coram Nubis Pursuant to Miscarriage of Justice:

> "Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th of November 2015."
# CE2004078EN.01053201.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/532 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/532

---

(2004/C 78 E/0554)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3371/03

by Mogens Camre (UEN) to the Commission

(14 November 2003)

Subject:   Legal implications of ratification of EU draft Constitution

Subject:

Article 311 of the Treaty establishing the European Community states that the protocols form an integral part of the Treaty. As the existing treaties — the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community — will cease to be valid once the EU's draft Constitution is ratified, it must also be expected that the existing protocols will also cease to be valid and will be renegotiated in accordance with the principle set out in Article 48 of the Treaty on European Union.

Moreover, Part IV of the Convention's draft Constitution, Articles IV-2 and IV-3, in particular the second paragraph thereof, states that only those protocols mentioned in the protocol annexed to the Treaty establishing the Constitution will remain in force. This must be construed as meaning that the other protocols which are not listed in the protocol annexed to the Constitution cease to be valid and are to be renegotiated by the Heads of Government at the Intergovernmental Conference. Can the Commission confirm this to be the case?

Can the Commission say what the legal implications of ratification of the EU's draft Constitution will be in relation to the protocols which are currently annexed to the present Treaties?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(23 December 2003)

(23 December 2003)

Article IV(2) of the draft Constitution provides for the repeal of the EC and EU Treaties, including all the protocols attached to those Treaties.

Accordingly, when the Constitution enters into force, all the protocols in question will be repealed.

The Presidency of the Intergovernmental Conference has instructed a group of legal experts from the delegations, under the chairmanship of Mr Piris, an IGC juris consult, to check the legality of the draft Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe drawn up by the Convention. The exercise also involved looking into the matter of which protocols attached to the EU or EC Treaty should be included or adapted. The result of this work has been submitted to the Conference (doc. IGC 50/03-ADD 1); if the Conference endorses the result, the protocols in question, revised by that group, will be attached to the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe.

---
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-08-00533-CV

In re Delfino Gonzalez

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM COMAL COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

The petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).

__________________________________________

Jan P. Patterson, Justice

Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Patterson and Waldrop

Filed: September 5, 2008
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   Exhibit 10.34

                                Amendment to the
                               Dime Bancorp, Inc.
                          Senior Officer Incentive Plan


         Effective as of January 1, 2000, the Dime Bancorp, Inc. Senior Officer
Incentive Plan (the "Plan") is amended in the following particulars:

         Section 2(e) of the Plan is hereby amended by adding at the end of the
last paragraph thereof the following new sentence to read as follows:

         "Notwithstanding anything in this Plan to the contrary, none of the
         execution of the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated September 15, 1999
         and as amended and restated on December 27, 1999, between Hudson United
         Bancorp and the Company (the `Merger Agreement'), the consummation of
         the merger of Hudson United Bancorp with and into the Company, or the
         consummation of the other actions or transactions contemplated by the
         Merger Agreement, shall constitute a Change in Control under the Plan."
# C_2012089EN.01002002.xml

| 24.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 89/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 89/20

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 February 2012 — Italy v Commission

(Case T-267/06) (1)

1

(EAGGF - Guarantee Section - Expenditure excluded from Community financing - Financial corrections - Fruit and vegetables - Public storage of beef and veal)

2012/C 89/31

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Aiello, Avvocato dello Stato)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Cattabriga and F. Jimeno Fernández, Agents, assisted by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Partial annulment of Commission Decision 2006/554/EC of 27 July 2006 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 2006 L 218, p. 12), in so far as it excludes certain expenditure incurred by the Italian Republic in the fruit and vegetable sector and in the public storage of beef and veal sector.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the Italian Republic to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Italian Republic to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 281, 18.11.2006.

1

---
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Stephen Llewellyn, Acting Executive Officer on (202) 663-4070.

This notice issued September 12, 2005.

Stephen Llewellyn,

Acting Executive Officer, Executive Secretariat.

[FR Doc. 05-18371  Filed 9-12-05; 2:43 pm]

BILLING CODE 6750-06-M
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.80


                              CKE RESTAURANTS, INC.

                                 AMENDMENT NO. 2
                                       TO
                              EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


         This Amendment No. 2 (the "Amendment") to Employment Agreement is made
effective as of March 20, 2007, by and between CKE Restaurants, Inc. (the
"Company") and Brad R. Haley (the "Employee").


                                    RECITALS:

         A. The Company and the Employee entered into an Employment Agreement
dated as of January 2004, and amended on December 6, 2005 (the "Agreement").


         B. The Company and Employee now desire to amend the Agreement as set
forth below.



                                    AGREEMENT

         1. Other Compensation and Fringe Benefits. Section 4(d) of the
Agreement is hereby amended to extend the bonus provided for therein to fiscal
years 2008, 2009 and 2010.

         2. Definitions. Terms used but not defined in this Amendment shall have
the respective meanings assigned to them in the Agreement.

         3. Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed in multiple
counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, and all of which shall
constitute one Amendment.

         4. Terms and Conditions of Agreement. Except as specifically amended by
this Amendment, all terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full
force and effect.



                            [SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]






                                       1

<PAGE>


         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment is executed by the undersigned as of
the date first written above.



                                   /s/ Brad R. Haley
                                   ---------------------------------------------
                                   Brad R. Haley



                                   CKE Restaurants, Inc.



                                   By: /s/ Peter Churm
                                      ------------------------------------------
                                       Peter Churm
                                       Director and Chairman of the Compensation
                                       Committee of the Board of Directors







                                       2
FAIRES, et al. v. STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, et al.

No. 84A16-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 17, 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, 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.

*AMENDED ORDER*

Parties' Joint Motion for Expedited Hearing is allowed as follows. The Record on Appeal and Defendant-Appellants' brief are due on or before 24 March 2016. Plaintiff-Appellees' brief is due on or before 31 March 2016. Defendant-Appellants' reply brief, if any, is due on or before 5 April 2016. Oral argument will be heard at 9:30 a.m. on 13 April 2016:

> "Motion Spec Order by order of the Court in conference, this the 17th of March 2016."

EDMUNDS, J. recused.
# C_2008171EN.01003202.xml

| 5.7.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.7.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/32

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 22 May 2008 — Radio Regenbogen Hörfunk in Baden v OHIM (RadioCom)

(Case T-254/06) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark RadioCom - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

(2008/C 171/58)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Radio Regenbogen Hörfunk in Baden Geschäftsfürhungs-GmbH (Mannheim, Germany) (represented by: W. Göpfert, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 July 2006 (Case R 1266/2005-1) concerning an application for registration of thee word mark RadioCom as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action.

| 2. | Orders Radio Regenbogen Hörfunk in Baden Geschäftsführungs-GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Radio Regenbogen Hörfunk in Baden Geschäftsführungs-GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 261, 28.10.2006.

1

---
# C_2008209EN.01004601.xml

| 15.8.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 209/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 209/46

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 1 July 2008 — Apple Computer v OHIM — TKS-Teknosoft (QUARTZ)

(Case T-328/05) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark QUARTZ - Earlier Community figurative mark QUARTZ - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity between goods - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

(2008/C 209/79)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Apple Computer, Inc. (Cupertino, California (United-States) (represented by: P. Rawlinson, S. Jones, J. Rutter and T.M. D'Souza Culora, solicitors)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: TKS-Teknosoft SA (Trélex, Switzerland) (represented by: C. Moreau, T. van Innis and K. Manhaeve, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 April 2005 (Case R 416/2004-4) relating to opposition proceedings between TKS-Teknosoft SA and Apple Computer, Inc.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action

| 2. | Orders Apple Computer Inc. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Apple Computer Inc. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 281, 18.11.2005.

1

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

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000931755
<NAME> AEI INCOME & GROWTH FUND XXI LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                       9,413,611
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   40,272
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             9,453,883
<PP&E>                                      11,022,829
<DEPRECIATION>                               (216,975)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              20,259,737
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          608,797
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  19,650,940
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                20,259,737
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               349,610
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  128,650
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                220,960
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            220,960
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   220,960
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     9.17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     9.17
        

</TABLE>
STATE v. Donald Lee CURTIS.

No. 122A16-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 21, 2016.

Narendra K. Ghosh, Chapel Hill, Attorney at Law, for Curtis, Donald Lee.

Katherine A. Murphy, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

James R. O'Neill, 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 21st of April 2016 by Defendant:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 21st of April 2016."
# C_2011145EN.01001903.xml

| 14.5.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 145/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.5.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 145/19

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2011 — Comap v Commission

(Case T-377/06) (1)

1

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Copper and copper alloy fittings sector - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Duration of participation in the infringement - Fines - Determination of the starting amount of the fine - Proportionality)

2011/C 145/28

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Comap SA (Paris, France) (represented initially by A. Wachsmann and C. Pommiès, subsequently by A. Wachsmann and D. Nourissier, and finally by A. Wachsmann and S. de Guigné, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Nijenhuis and V. Bottka, acting as Agents, and by N. Coutrelis, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2006) 4180 of 20 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F-1/38.121 — Fittings), and also for a reduction in the fine imposed on the applicant in that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Comap SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Comap SA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 42, 24.2.2007.

1

---
----

(2004/C 33 E/237)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2188/03

by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) and María Valenciano Martínez-Orozco (PSE) to the Commission

(2 July 2003)

Subject:   Discrimination against pregnant women in grants made by the Ministry of Labour in Spain

The Institute for Women, which is a subsidiary organisation of the Spanish Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs, has recently called for applications for training placement grants whose application regulations include a clause suspending the placement and salary if participants give birth and decide to look after the baby for the subsequent 16 weeks (Regulation TAS/939/2003 published in BOE [Official State Journal] 93 on 18 April 2003).

Does the Commission consider that this condition in the regulations governing the award of these grants complies with Directive 92/85/EEC (1)?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(4 August 2003)

With regard to the matter brought to its attention by the Honourable Members, the Commission intends to contact the Spanish authorities to find out how these grants are awarded.

At first glance, it would appear that the possibility of an infringement of the Community legislation governing the equal treatment of men and women cannot be ruled out in this case.

----

(1)OJ L 348, 28.11.1992, p. 1.

----