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

(2004/C 65 E/187)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2532/03

by Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 July 2003)

Subject:   Conflict of interests for the Commission's Accounting Officer

On 1 January 2003 Mr Brian Gray was appointed Accounting Officer of the Commission. He is also Deputy Director-General for the Budget.

Does the Commission consider that this dual role is in keeping with the provision of the new budgetary rules, which require a strict functional separation between execution of the budget and accounting?

The Directorate-General for the Budget's organization chart on the Internet shows that while a number of heads of division of this Directorate-General report directly to Mr Gray this is not true of the accounting services.

Will the Commission say whether this is an oversight? If not, to whom do the accounting services report?

The organisation chart also shows that the Secretariat of the Commission's Audit Progress Committee reports to Mr Gray. He thus has a considerable say as regards inspections carried out by the Commission's internal audit service and the evaluation of its findings.

Does the Commission agree that this situation creates a potential conflict of interests for Mr Gray, in particular if the internal audit service wishes to inspect accounting and cash management?

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(30 September 2003)

In recognition of the importance of the role played by the Accounting Officer, the Commission decided that this function should be occupied at the level of A1, and appointed Mr Brian Gray, the Deputy Director-General of Directorate General (DG) Budget. The execution of the budget is the responsibility of the delegated authorising officers in the operational Directorate-Generals. DG Budget is responsible for the execution of own resources and of its own administrative expenses. Mr Gray has no sub-delegations for any revenue or expenditure operations, nor do any staff of the services which report directly to him, namely Directorate C, and Unit 01. The Commission considers therefore that there is a strict functional separation in his respect.

The work associated with the responsibilities of the Accounting Officer, as set out in Articles 61 and 63 of the Financial Regulation (1), is undertaken by Directorate C of DG Budget, the Director of which reports directly to the Deputy Director-General. The organisation chart will clarify this issue.

In order to facilitate the organisation of the Audit Progress Committee meetings, which concern several Commission services and external experts, the Commission decided on 9 July 2003 to transfer the Secretariat of the Audit Progress Committee to the Secretariat General. The organisation chart will be updated in this respect once the administrative procedures to implement this decision have been completed.

----

(1)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities, OJ L 248, 16.9.2002.

----
**Exhibit 99.1**
**CERTIFICATION**
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Public Company Accounting Reform and InvestorProtection Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted), David DeWalt, the ChiefExecutive Officer of Documentum, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certifies that,to his knowledge:
1.     The Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September30, 2002, to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 99.1 (the“Periodic Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) orSection 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
2.     The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition of the Company at the end of theperiod covered by the Periodic Report and results of operations of the Companyfor the period covered by the Periodic Report.
This certification accompanies the Periodic Report pursuant to Section 906 ofthe Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act of 2002 andshall not be deemed “filed” by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
     **In Witness Whereof**, the undersigned has set his hand hereto as of the 14thday of November, 2002. /s/ David DeWalt
STATE v. Delwood Earl SHELLY.

No. 268P15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Nov. 5, 2015.

Delwood Earl Shelly, Lillington, for Shelly, Delwood Earl.

Daniel P. O'Brien, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

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

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 30th of July 2015 by Defendant to Proceed In Forma Pauperis:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th of November 2015."
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

March 22, 2019 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT
JAQUAN ISAIAH WILLIAMS, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D17-666 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Upon the court's own motion, this court's opinion dated March 20, 2019, is withdrawn. A substitute opinion will be forthcoming.

I HEREBY CERTIFY THE FOREGOING IS A TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL COURT ORDER.

MARY ELIZABETH KUENZEL, CLERK

cc: AA, AE
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-7103

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

PHUC LUC,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District

Judge. (1:05-cr-00275-LMB-1)

Submitted: August 21, 2008 Decided: August 27, 2008

Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Phuc Luc, Appellant Pro Se. Kelli Hamby Ferry, Assistant United

States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Phuc Luc appeals the district court’s order denying his

motion to reduce his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)

(2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. United States v. Luc, No. 1:05-cr-00275-LMB-1 (E.D. Va.

June 6, 2008). We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-1072

DENNIS SHIPMAN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

SOMERSET COUNTY (MD); SOMERSET COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF 

TECHNICAL & COMMUNITY SERVICES (MD); KIRK SIMPKINS; W. 

NEWTON JACKSON, MD Circuit Court Judge, individually and in his official 

capacity,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. 

George L. Russell, III, District Judge. (1:22-cv-03111-GLR)

Submitted: September 5, 2023 Decided: October 6, 2023

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion. Judge Gregory dissents.

Dennis Shipman, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1072 Doc: 8 Filed: 10/06/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Dennis Shipman appeals the district court’s order dismissing his complaint and 

request for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order for failure to comply 

with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), 65(b). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order, but we modify the judgment to reflect 

that the dismissal is without prejudice.

* Shipman v. Somerset Cnty. (MD), No. 1:22-cv03111-GLR (D. Md. Jan. 10, 2023). We dispense with oral argument because the facts 

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED

* Judge Gregory voted to vacate the district court’s order and remand with 

instructions to allow Shipman an opportunity to amend his complaint.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1072 Doc: 8 Filed: 10/06/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5

       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          30,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                30,000
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,257,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       26,122,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                 (17,865,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,257,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  413,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           3,395,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (3,807,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (3,807,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (3,807,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        


</TABLE>
# C_2008272EN.01001702.xml

| 25.10.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 272/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.10.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 272/17

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 September 2008 — JSC Kirovo-Chepetsky Khimichesky Kombinat v Council

(Case T-348/05) (1)

1

(Dumping - Imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia and Ukraine - Amendment of the definition of the product concerned - Application of existing measures to new product types)

(2008/C 272/31)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: JSC Kirovo-Chepetsky Khimichesky Kombinat (Kirovo-Chepetsk, Russia) (represented: initially by B. Servais and Y. Melin, and subsequently by B. Servais, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix, acting as Agent, assisted by G. Berrisch, lawyer)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. Righini and K. Talabér-Ritz, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action for annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 945/2005 of 21 June 2005 amending Regulation (EC) No 658/2002 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia and Regulation (EC) No 132/2001 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in, inter alia, Ukraine, following a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (OJ 2005 L 160, p. 1)

inter alia

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Council Regulation (EC) No 945/2005 of 21 June 2005 amending Regulation (EC) No 658/2002 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia and Regulation (EC) No 132/2001 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in, inter alia, Ukraine, following a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Council Regulation (EC) No 945/2005 of 21 June 2005 amending Regulation (EC) No 658/2002 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia and Regulation (EC) No 132/2001 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in, inter alia, Ukraine, following a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96;

inter alia

| 2. | Orders the Council to bear its own costs and those incurred by JSC Kirovo-Chepetsky Khimichesky Kombinat; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Council to bear its own costs and those incurred by JSC Kirovo-Chepetsky Khimichesky Kombinat;

| 3. | Orders the Commission to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Commission to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 281, 12.11.2005.

1

---
STATE v. Timothy RICHARDSON.

No. 232A95-5.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 17, 2016.

Jonathan P. Babb, Special Counsel to Attorney General, for State of NC.

Kenneth J. Rose, Durham, for Richardson, Timothy.

Thomas J. Moore, II, Smithfield, for Richardson, Timothy.

Mr. Robert A. Evans, Jr., District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 4th of January 2016 by Defendant for Leave to Reply to State's Response to Petition for Writ of Certiorari:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 17th of March 2016."
# Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 577/2014Show full title

Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 577/2014 of 28 May 2014 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive            measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 577/2014                     

# of 28 May 2014

# implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening                        the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine                     

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 of 17 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions                           undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine(1), and in particular Article 14(1) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)On 17 March 2014, the Council adopted Regulation (EU) No 269/2014.

(2)The information for seventeen persons and two entities included in the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to restrictive                              measures in Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 should be amended.

(3)Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 should be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 is hereby amended as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.

# Article 2U.K.

This Regulation shall enter into force on the date of its publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*.                  

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 28 May 2014.

*For the Council*                            

*The President*                            

E. Venizelos                            

## ANNEXU.K.

The entries for the following persons and entities set out in Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 are replaced by the entries                     below.                  

Persons:

Entities:

1

OJ L 78, 17.3.2014, p. 6.
STATE of North Carolina v. Wayne Allen DAVIS.

No. 371P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 17, 2016.

Craig M. Cooley, Cary, for Davis, Wayne Allen.

Nancy D. Flardison, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Brandy Cook, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 10th of November 2015 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 17th of March 2016."
# CE2004065EN.01005402.xml

| 13.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 65/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 65/54

---

(2004/C 65 E/055)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1189/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(1 April 2003)

Subject:   Use of funds from the FIFG by the municipality of Massa

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 Massa, urgently need to use European funds to support structural measures in the sector of fisheries, acquaculture and the processing and marketing of the relevant products,

can the Commission state:

| 1. | whether the municipality of Massa has submitted projects for the FIFG? |
| --- | --- |

1.

whether the municipality of Massa has submitted projects for the FIFG?

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

2.

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

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

3.

whether this funding has been used?

---
<PAGE>

               CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT OF CERTIFICATE OF DESIGNATION,
            PREFERENCES AND RIGHTS OF SERIES B CUMULATIVE PREFERRED STOCK

                                           OF

                               BPC HOLDING CORPORATION



         BPC Holding Corporation (hereinafter called the "Corporation"), a
corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the General
Corporation Law of the State of Delaware, does hereby certify:

    1. The name of the Corporation is: BPC Holding Corporation

    2. On August 29, 1997, pursuant to authority vested in the Board of
Directors by ARTICLE FOURTH of the Corporation's Restated Certificate of
Incorporation, the Corporation filed a Certificate of Designation,
Preferences and Rights of Series B Cumulative Preferred Stock (the
"Certificate of Designation") with the Secretary of State of the State of
Delaware

    3. The Certificate of Designation is hereby amended (the "Amendment") by
striking out the definition of "Series A Preferred Stock" set forth in
section 2 and replacing it with the following:

         "SERIES A PREFERRED STOCK" means collectively the Series A Senior
Cumulative Exchangeable Preferred Stock of the Corporation and the Series A-1
Senior Cumulative Preferred Stock of the Corporation.

    4. The Amendment of the Certificate of Designation herein certified has
been duly adopted in accordance with the provisions of Section 242 of the
General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware.

<PAGE>

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, being an officer of the Corporation
hereinabove named, DOES HEREBY CERTIFY, under penalties of perjury, that the
facts hereinabove stated are truly set forth and, accordingly, such officer
has hereunto set his hand on this 5th day of May, 2000.





                                        ------------------------------
                                        Name:   James M. Kratochvil
                                        Title:  Executive Vice President,
                                                Chief Financial Officer,
                                                Treasurer and Secretary
Kimberly LEDFORD, Plaintiff, v. INGLES MARKETS, INC., Employer, Self-Insured, Defendant.

No. COA15-522.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

April 5, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Affirmed.
# C_2008022EN.01005401.xml

| 26.1.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 22/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 22/54

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 13 December 2007 — Van Neyghem v Commission

(Case F-73/06) (1)

1

(Staff case - Officials - Open competition - Assessment of the written test - Time-limit for lodging a complaint - Admissibility - Duty to state reasons)

(2008/C 22/102)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Kris Van Neyghem (Vissenaken, Belgium) (represented: initially by S. Rodrigues, A. Jaume and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers, then by S. Rodrigues and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Joris and M. Velardo)

Defendant:

Re:

Annulment of the EPSO decision of 1 June 2005 not to admit the applicant to the oral test of Competition EPSO/A/19/04 by reason of the insufficient result of his written test, and, secondly, a claim for damages.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Dismisses the application; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the application;

| 2. | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 190 of 12.8.2006, p. 37.

1

---
<PAGE>   1
                                  EXHIBIT 23.1

               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS





        We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement (Forms S-8 No. 333-286, S-8 No. 333-52037, and S-8 No. 333-68249)
pertaining to the 1985 Stock Incentive Program, 1994 Stock Option Plan, Outside
Directors' Stock Option Plan and Employee Qualified Stock Purchase Plan of
Celeritek, Inc. of our report dated April 23, 1999, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements and schedule of Celeritek, Inc. included in
this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31, 1999.



                                                          /s/ Ernst & Young, LLP


San Jose, California
June 1, 1999