alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# CE2004078EN.01011401.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/114 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/114

---

(2004/C 78 E/0115)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2448/03

by Georges Berthu (NI) to the Commission

(23 July 2003)

Subject:   Inappropriate incentive to destroy hedgerows

Subject:

Article 22(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2419/2001 (1) of 11 December 2001 specifies that the width of hedgerows taken into account when determining the surface area of agricultural parcels eligible for area aid ‘must correspond to a traditional width in the region in question and shall not exceed 2 metres. The Member States may [ ...] allow a width greater than 2 metres if those areas were taken into account for the fixing of the yields of the regions concerned.’

1

The upshot of these provisions is to encourage farmers to destroy hedgerows that exceed the permitted width, at a time when their conservation would often seem to be an objective in the general interest.

Might the Commission present to the Council and the European Parliament a measure reforming the article in question so as to put an end to its perverse effects?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(10 September 2003)

(10 September 2003)

The Commission is committed to improving and maintaining the rural environment in the context of the Common Agricultural Policy. It considers hedges and field ditches as being of great importance for wildlife and other environmental functions across the whole farming spectrum. However, the Commission has also to ensure that only eligible land may benefit from Community aid, hence the provisions under Article 22 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2419/2001 of 11 December 2001 laying down detailed rules for applying the integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes established by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92, which were adopted only after much consideration of the environmental issues involved, allow the Member States to decide that certain features such as hedgerows may be considered part of the fully utilised area of an agricultural parcel.

Thus, the Commission considers that the regulatory provision cited by the Honourable Member provides sufficient flexibility for Member States to account for specific environmental needs, and does not agree with his assertion that the provisions of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2419/2001 encourage farmers to destroy hedgerows.

Consequently, there are no plans to amend the article in question.

---

(1)  OJ L 327, 12.12.2001, p. 11.

1

---
Charles F. Walter, Jr., Plaintiff, v. Lawrence Joseph Walter, Sr.; Laurie Walter, Lawrence Joseph Walter, Jr.; Angel Walter ; Thomas D. Walter, individually and as personal representative of the estate of Louise Walter; Judith Walter; The Louise M. Walter Trust u/t/d February 7, 2000 as amended through Thomas D. Walter, First Successor Trustee; Melanie Walter Day; Patrick Day; Edwin Boyer as Administrator Ad Litem of the Estate of Charles Walter ; Barbara Evers as Personal Representative of the Estate of Charles Walter, Defendants.

No. COA16-210

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: October 4, 2016

REVERSED.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES–OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of NES Rentals Holdings, Inc.(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ending June 30,2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, Andrew P. Studdert, President and Chief Executive Officer,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

 

(1)          The Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)          The information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Company.

 
| /s/ ANDREW P. STUDDERT                |   |
|---------------------------------------|--------|
|                                  |
| Andrew P. Studdert                    |
| President and Chief Executive Officer |
| August 12, 2004                       |

 

----
Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

September 26, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136453-58 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

VILLAGE OF NORTHPORT, Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Plaintiff-Appellee, Stephen J. Markman, 

Justices 

v SC: 136453 

 COA: 282475 

Leelanau CC: 07-007582-CC 

LARRY C. BUSBY and MARALINE K. SZASZ,

Defendants-Appellants, 

and 

CONSUMERS ENERGY and NORTHWESTERN 

BANK,

 Non-Fee Owner Defendants. 

_________________________________________/ 

VILLAGE OF NORTHPORT,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 136454 

 COA: 282476 

Leelanau CC: 07-007586-CC 

HOWARD B. CANN and KRISTIN B. CANN, 

Trustees, 

Defendants-Appellants, 

and 

CONSUMERS ENERGY and USAA FEDERAL 

SAVINGS BANK,

 Non-Fee Owner Defendants. 

_________________________________________/ 

VILLAGE OF NORTHPORT,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 136455 

 COA: 282477 

Leelanau CC: 07-007584-CC 

KATHERINE M. DAVIS, Trustee, 

Defendant-Appellant, 
 

 

 

 

2 

and 

CONSUMERS ENERGY,

 Non-Fee Owner Defendant. 

_________________________________________/ 

VILLAGE OF NORTHPORT,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 136456 

 COA: 282478 

Leelanau CC: 07-007583-CC 

CHARLES H. FUNK and BEVERLY L. FUNK,

Defendants-Appellants, 

and 

CONSUMERS ENERGY,

 Non-Fee Owner Defendant. 

_________________________________________/ 

VILLAGE OF NORTHPORT,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 136457 

 COA: 282479 

Leelanau CC: 07-007587-CC 

HERBERT F. TAYLOR and MARY A. TAYLOR,

Defendants-Appellants, 

and 

CONSUMERS ENERGY,

 Non-Fee Owner Defendant. 

_________________________________________/ 

VILLAGE OF NORTHPORT,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 136458 

 COA: 282480 

Leelanau CC: 07-007585-CC 

BARBARA GILMORE WEBER, Trustee, 

Defendant-Appellant, 

and 

CONSUMERS ENERGY and JP MORGAN 

CHASE BANK, N.A., 

Non-Fee Owner Defendants. 
 _________________________________________ 

 

3 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Chief Justice, a stipulation signed by counsel for the parties 

agreeing to the dismissal of this application for leave to appeal is considered, and the 

application for leave to appeal is DISMISSED with prejudice and without costs. 

0923 

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 26, 2008 

Clerk
1628.

#### Johnson *v.*The State.

Conviction of shooting at another, from Warren superior court —Judge Worley. December 7, 1908.

Submitted February 9,

Decided February 16, 1909.

*M. L. Felts,*for plaintiff in error.

*Thomas J. Brown, solicitor-general, David W. Meadow,*contra.

Hill, C. J.

No error cappears, and the verdict is supported by the evidence.

*Judgment affirmed.*
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

October 1, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 136336 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, BRIAN POTTER, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 136336 

 COA: 262529 

Washtenaw CC: 03-001226-NH 

KRISTYN H. MURRY, M.D. and

HURON VALLEY RADIOLOGY, P.C.,

 Defendants-Appellees, 

and 

ST. JOSEPH MERCY HOSPITAL ANN 

ARBOR, d/b/a TRINITY HEALTHMICHIGAN, RICHARD C. McLEARY, M.D., 

GARY AUGUSTYN, M.D., ROBERT

DOMEIER, D.O., and EMERGENCY 

PHYSICIANS MEDICAL GROUP, P.C.,

 Defendants. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 20, 2008 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, it is GRANTED, limited to the issue 

whether defendant Huron Valley Radiology, P.C. is a “health facility or agency” to which 

a plaintiff is required to provide notice under MCL 600.2912b(1). See MCL 

333.20106(1). 

The Michigan Association for Justice, Michigan Defense Trial Counsel, Inc., 

Michigan Health and Hospital Association, and Citizens for Better Care are invited to file 

briefs amicus curiae. Other persons or groups interested in the determination of the issue 

presented in this case may move the Court for permission to file briefs amicus curiae. 

0924 

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. 

October 1, 2008 

 Clerk
1

 The opinion said, “However, we do not agree that this pretrial judge should necessarily be

located in Harris County, a county in which none of these cases are pending.” None of the cases that

we transferred are pending in Bexar County.

NOS. 08-0142, 08-0208 & 08-0427 

 IN RE DELTA LLOYDS INSURANCE COMPANY OF HOUSTON, TEXAS

IN RE HURRICANE RITA HOMEOWNERS’ CLAIMS

 IN RE SOUTHEAST SURPLUS UNDERWRITERS GENERAL AGENCY, INC.

ON REVIEW BY THE MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION PANEL

PER CURIAM

The Respondents’ motion to vacate order of appointment of pretrial judge is granted in part

and denied in part.

First, the motion correctly points out that the list of cases attached to our order appears to

include cases that we did not intend to transfer. To the extent the motion seeks correction of this

error, it is granted. A corrected list of the cases transferred is attached to this order.

Second, the motion argues that the assignment of Judge John J. Specia, Jr., a retired judge

from Bexar County who is eligible to sit by assignment, is inconsistent with a statement in the

panel’s opinion1

 and also that it would not serve the interests of convenience and efficiency to hold

hearings in Bexar County, which has no connection to these cases from southeast Texas. These

contentions rest on the mistaken assumption that a retired judge will necessarily hold hearings in the

county where he lives. 

To clear up any confusion on this matter, we make the following orders. It is hereby

ORDERED that:

(1) The cases on the attached list are transferred to whichever District Court in

Jefferson County Judge Specia determines in his discretion can best serve as the

transferee court under Rule 13.2 (e). Judge Specia is assigned to that court to serve

as pretrial judge in these cases under Rule 13.6 (a). 
2

(2) Hearings shall be held in such court or in any other district court in a county

where any of the cases are pending. In addition, Judge Specia may, in his discretion,

conduct hearings by telephone or other conferencing methods. He may hold hearings

in other counties only if he and all parties agree in advance on another location. 

(3) Judge Specia will exercise his discretion in deciding under Rule 13.5 (c) who and

where his pretrial court clerk will be, where files should be located, and whether

there should be electronic or paper filing or both. 

ALL CONCUR.

OPINION DELIVERED: October 8, 2008
Exhibit 31.1



Certifications



I, J.A. Cardwell, Sr., certify that:



1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Petro Financial Corporation;



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;



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4. The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:



(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most
recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and



5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial
reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control
over financial reporting.



Date: March 25,
2004

|                         
|-------------------------
|                         
|/s/    J.A. Cardwell, Sr.
|                         
|(J.A. Cardwell, Sr.)     
|President and Director
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

  CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 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-Q of Applix, Inc. (the
"Company") for the period ended March 31, 2002 as originally filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 15, 2002 and as amended on the date
hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, Walt Hilger, Chief Financial
Officer of the Company hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
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/ Walt Hilger
                                        ---------------------------------
                                        Walt Hilger
                                        Chief Financial Officer


Dated: March 31, 2003










A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Applix, Inc. and will be retained by Applix, Inc. and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
SECTION 302 CERTIFICATIONS

I,  John A. Clarke, certify that:

1.

I have reviewed this annual report on Form 40-F/A (Amended) of  Nevsun Resources Ltd.;

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;

3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.

The issuers other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the issuer and have:

(a)

Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b)

Evaluated the effectiveness of the issuers disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c)

Disclosed in this report any change in the issuers internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the issuers internal control over financial reporting; and

5.

The issuers other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the issuers auditors and the audit committee of the issuers board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a)

All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the issuers ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b)

Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the issuer’s internal control over financial reporting.

/s/ John A. Clarke

Signature

June
28, 2006

Date

Chief Executive Officer, President

Title
STATE of North Carolina v. Derrick D. BOGER

No. 158P06-9

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 20, 2016

Derrick D. Boger, For Boger, Derrick D.

Mary Carla Babb, Assistant Attorney General, For State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the application filed by Defendant on the 20th of September 2016 in this matter for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Cabarrus County:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of September 2016."
STATE of North Carolina, v. Tunisia DAWSON.

No. COA15-420.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Dec. 1, 2015.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

No Error.
# C_2010113EN.01003702.xml

| 1.5.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 113/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.5.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 113/37

---

Judgment of the General Court of 4 March 2010 — Zhejiang Aokang Shoes and Wenzhou Taima Shoes v Council

(Joined Cases T-407/06 and T-408/06) (1)

1

(Dumping - Imports of footwear with uppers of leather originating in China and Vietnam - Market economy treatment - Individual treatment - Sampling - Rights of the defence - Equal treatment - Injury - Legitimate expectations - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based)

2010/C 113/58

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Zhejiang Aokang Shoes Co., Ltd (Yongjia, China) (Case T-407/06) and Wenzhou Taima Shoes Co., Ltd (Wenzhou, China) (Case T-408/06) (represented by: I. MacVay, Solicitor, R. Thompson QC, and K. Beal, Barrister)

Applicants:

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

Defendant:

Interveners in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. van Vliet and T. Scharf, actig as Agents); Confédération européenne de l’industrie de la chaussure (CEC) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented: initially by P. Vlaemminck, G. Zonnekeyn and S. Verhulst and subsequently by P. Vlaemminck and A. Hubert, lawyers); BA.LA. di Lanciotti Vittorio & C. Sas (Monte Urano, Italy) and the 16 other interveners listed in the Annex (represented by: G. Celona, P. Tabellini and C. Cavaliere, lawyers)

Interveners in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

Applications for partial annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 of 5 October 2006 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People’s Republic of China and Vietnam (OJ 2006 L 275, p. 1), in so far as it concerns the applicants.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the actions; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the actions;

| 2. | Orders Zhejiang Aokang Shoes Co., Ltd and Wenzhou Taima Shoes Co., Ltd to bear their own costs as well as those incurred by the Council of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Zhejiang Aokang Shoes Co., Ltd and Wenzhou Taima Shoes Co., Ltd to bear their own costs as well as those incurred by the Council of the European Union;

| 3. | Orders the European Commission, the Confédération européenne de l’industrie de la chaussure (CEC), BA.LA. di Lanciotti Vittorio & C. Sas and the 16 other interveners listed in the Annex to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission, the Confédération européenne de l’industrie de la chaussure (CEC), BA.LA. di Lanciotti Vittorio & C. Sas and the 16 other interveners listed in the Annex to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 42, 24.2.2007.

1

---