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

(2004/C 33 E/116)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1413/03

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(23 April 2003)

Subject:   Sewage disposal/treatment

Can the Commission comment on the extent to which the sewerage systems in Brussels and Milan comply with EU law on sewage treatment and disposal?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(23 May 2003)

Council Directive 91/271/EECof 21 May 1991 concerning urban wastewater treatment (1) requires Member States to ensure that all agglomerations with more than 2 000 inhabitant equivalents (2) are provided with urban wastewater collection and treatment systems. The deadlines for providing these systems are 31 December 1998 (tertiary treatment), 31 December 2000 and 31 December 2005, depending upon the size of the conurbation and the sensitivity of the recipient waters.

Concerning Milan, the Commission has launched an infringement procedure against Italy for failure to comply with this Directive. This is because wastewater in Milan has been discharged into the relevant catchment areas without the necessary stringent (tertiary) treatment. A judgement of 25 April 2002 by the European Court of Justice was in favour of the Commission's position.

The construction of three wastewater treatment plants in Milan is currently ongoing. The Italian Authorities have informed the Commission that they predict the installations ‘Milano Sud’ (treating 40 % of the urban wastewater of Milan) and ‘Peschiera’ (10 %) will be operational at the end of 2004. The installation ‘Nosedo’ will eventually treat 50 % of Milan's urban wastewater. The Italian Authorities have stated that this station started working at 25 % of its potential in April 2003. Full operation will be achieved by January 2005. The Commission is continuing to monitor the situation.

The Commission has also launched an infringement procedure against Belgium because of untreated wastewater discharges from Brussels. The case was brought before the Court of Justice in January 2003. According to the Belgian Authorities, they are proceeding with the investment programme for stringent (tertiary) treatment plants for Brussels. The predicted date for completion is June 2006.

Finally, a Commission report (in preparation) on the implementation of the urban wastewater Council Directive 91/271/EEC will give information on the present treatment situation across the Union. The report will be available within the coming months.

----

(1)OJ L 135, 30.5.1991, as amended by Commission Directive 98/15/EC of 27 February 1998, OJ L 67, 7.3.1998.

(2)  An organic-pollution measuring unit representing the average pollution produced per person per day.

----
<PAGE>


                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8 No. 333-44725) pertaining to the PRT Group, Inc. Amended and
Restated 1996 Stock Incentive Plan, (Form S-8 No. 333-95247) pertaining to
the PRT Group Inc. 401(k) Plan and (Form S-3 No. 333-36468) of our report
dated March 30, 2001, with respect to the consolidated financial statements
and schedule of enherent Corp. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for
the year ended December 31, 2000.




New York, New York
March 30, 2001
# C_2008128EN.01001401.xml

| 24.5.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 128/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.5.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/14

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 April 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — J.C.M. Beheer BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-124/07) (1)

1

(Sixth VAT Directive - Supply of services relating to insurance transactions - Insurance brokers and insurance agents)

(2008/C 128/22)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: J.C.M. Beheer BV

Applicant:

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Defendant:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Interpretation of Article 13 B(a) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEG of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Supply by insurance brokers or insurance agents of services relating to insurance or reinsurance transactions — Taxable person acting as sub-agent in the name of a principal agent

Operative part of the judgment

Article 13B(a) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that an insurance broker or agent does not have a direct relationship with the parties to the insurance or reinsurance contract in the conclusion of which he has been instrumental, but merely an indirect relationship with them through the intermediary of another taxable person who is, himself, in a direct relationship with one of those parties, and to whom the insurance broker or agent is contractually bound does not prevent the service provided by the latter from being exempt from value added tax under that provision.

---

(1)  OJ C 95, 28.4.2007.

1

---
DOUGLAS REDDY



CONSENT OF QUALIFIED PERSON







To:

US Securities and Exchange Commission



I, Douglas Reddy do hereby consent to (i) the incorporation by reference of the following document(s) into the annual information form (the AIF) of Nevsun Resources Ltd. (the Issuer) dated March 22, 2006 to be filed with certain Canadian securities commissions and the annual report on Form 40-F (the 40-F) of the Issuer to be filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection therewith, and (ii) the inclusion of any extracts from or summary of such document(s) in the AIF and the 40-F:

1.  Technical Report on the Bisha Property and Resource Estimate of the Bisha Deposit, dated October 1, 2004

2.  Bisha Property, Gash-Barka District, Eritrea 43-101 Technical Report and Preliminary Assessment dated December 22, 2005

(collectively, the Technical Report)

I also certify that I have read the written disclosure being filed and that it fairly and accurately represents the information in the technical report that supports the written disclosure in the AIF and the 40-F dated March 22, 2006, of Nevsun Resources Ltd.



Dated this22 day of March, 2006.

signed

_______________________
Douglas Reddy

[Seal or Stamp]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997             DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997             DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           3,331                   6,605
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  157,440                 373,740
<ALLOWANCES>                                    96,830                  74,742
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0                       0
<PP&E>                                          11,543                  14,310
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,159                   3,765
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  70,686                 321,460
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           15,437                 172,629
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                           278                     239
<OTHER-SE>                                       3,899                  39,945
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    70,686                 321,460
<SALES>                                              0                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                35,548                  53,566
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   33,175                  27,162
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,701                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                30,674                  71,062
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,996                   6,268
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (40,998)                (50,926)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                  (1,187)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (40,998)                (49,739)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (40,998)                (49,739)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (1.68)                  (2.17)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (1.68)                  (2.17)


</TABLE>
# C_2008008EN.01001502.xml

| 12.1.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 8/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 8/15

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 22 November 2007 — Investire Partecipazioni v Commission

(Case T-102/06) (1)

1

(Action for annulment - ERDF - Reduction of financial assistance - Lack of direct concern - Inadmissibility)

(2008/C 8/29)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Investire Partecipazioni SpA (Rome, Italy) (represented by: G.M. Roberti and A. Franchi, Lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Velardo and L. Flynn, Agents, assisted by G. Faedo, Lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2005) 4683 of 25 November 2005, concerning a reduction of the assistance granted by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) pursuant to Decision C(97) 2199, of 27 July 1997, approving assistance from the ERDF for measures provided for in the Objective 2 Single Programming Document for the period 1997-1999 concerning the region of Piedmont (Italy).

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | Investire Partecipazioni is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Investire Partecipazioni is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 121, 20.5.2006.

1

---
<PAGE>
 
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.34


                                PROMISSORY NOTE


$1,000,000                                                         March 4, 1997

     As hereinafter stated, for value received Jayhawk Medical Acceptance
Corporation promises to pay to the order of Carl Westcott in Dallas, Texas the
sum of One Million Dollars, payable on demand with interest at the rate of prime
per annum from the date of this Promissory Note.   This Promissory Note may be
prepaid at any time without penalty.  Amounts due under this Promissory Note
from and after it is due shall bear interest at the highest lawful rate.

     We, the makers, sureties, endorsers and guarantors of this Promissory Note,
hereby severally waive presentment for payment, notice of nonpayment, protest
and notice of protest and diligence of bringing suit for collection, and consent
that time of payment may be extended without notice thereof to any of the
makers, sureties, endorsers or guarantors of this Promissory Note.  It is
further expressly agreed that if this Promissory Note is placed in the hands of
an attorney for collection, or suit is brought on same, or is collected through
the Probate Court, then, and in that event, the makers, sureties, endorsers and
guarantors will pay the holder of this Promissory Note the costs of collection,
including but not limited to the attorney's fees, incurred by the holder of this
Promissory Note.

     MAKER:                          /s/ Douglas Theodore
                                    -----------------------------------------
                                    By: Douglas Theodore
                                    For Jayhawk Medical Acceptance Corporation
#### Paul J. Wirth et al., Appellants, v ELO, Inc., et al., Respondents.

[801 NYS2d 853]

*1347Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Livingston County (Gerard J. Alonzo, Jr., A.J.), entered November 12, 2004. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on liability and granted that part of defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6) claims and the derivative cause of action.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously modified on the law by denying the "cross motion in part, reinstating the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and the derivative cause of action and granting that part of the motion against defendant ELO, Inc. and as modified the order is affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiffs commenced this action to recover damages for injuries sustained by Paul J. Wirth (plaintiff) when he fell from a makeshift scaffold that provided access to his work area. Supreme Court erred in denying that part of plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability against defendant ELO, Inc. (ELO), the owner of the construction project, and in granting that part of defendants’ cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. We therefore modify the order accordingly. Plaintiffs met their initial burden on the motion with respect to ELO by establishing that plaintiff was engaged in a protected activity that entailed an elevation-related risk and that the makeshift scaffold was not “so constructed, placed and operated as to give proper protection” to plaintiff (§ 240 [1]; *see Dahl v Armor Bldg. Supply,*280 AD2d 970, 970-971 [2001]; *Torino v KLM Constr.,*257 AD2d 541, 542 [1999]). Defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact whether the conduct of plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his injuries *(see Dahl,*280 AD2d at 971), and the court’s conclusion that it was not foreseeable that plaintiffs work would require the use of any of the safety devices contemplated by Labor Law § 240 (1) is not supported by the record *(cf. Wells v British Am. Dev. Corp.,*2 AD3d 1141, 1142-1143 [2003]).

We further conclude, however, that the court properly denied *1348that part of plaintiffs’ motion against defendant Kircher Construction, Inc. (Kircher), the “construction manager,” because plaintiffs’ own proof raises triable issues of fact whether Kircher had sufficient authority over the construction project to be held liable for the statutory violation (see *Olney v CiminelliCowper Co.,*248 AD2d 1019 [1998]). Plaintiffs’ contention that the court erred in granting that part of the cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim is raised for the first time in the reply brief and thus is not properly before us (see *Turner v Canale,*15 AD3d 960, 961 [2005], *lv denied*5 NY3d 702 [2005]). Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Kehoe, Martoche and Lawton, JJ.
STATE of North Carolina v. Sylvester Eugene HARDING.

No. 402P11-6.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Jan. 28, 2016.

Jonathan Shaw, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Sylvester Eugene Harding, for Harding, Sylvester Eugene.

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

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by Defendant on the 20th of August 2015 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30 (substantial constitutional question), the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the notice of appeal is

> "Dismissed Ex Mero Motu by order of the Court in conference, this the 28th of January 2016."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 20th of August 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 28th of January 2016."
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 182 (Wednesday, September 21, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 55424]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-18950]


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

MARINE MAMMAL COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Notice

Time and Date: The Marine Mammal Commission and its Committee of 
Scientific Advisors on Marine Mammals will meet on Wednesday, 12 
October 2005, and Thursday, 13 October 2005, from 8:30 a.m. to 6 p.m. 
The Commission and Committee will meet on Friday, 14 October 2005, from 
8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. The meetings are open to the public. The executive 
session of the Commission and the Committee meeting will be held on 
Friday, 14 October 2005, from 4:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m.

Place:  Anchorage Hilton Hotel, 500 West Third Avenue, Anchorage, 
Alaska 99501; telephone: 907-272-7411; fax: 907-265-7140.

Status: The executive session will be closed to the public. At it, 
matters relating to international negotiations in process, personnel, 
and the budget of the Commission will be discussed. All other portions 
of the meeting will be open to public observation. Public participation 
will be allowed as time permits and as determined to be desirable by 
the Chairman.

Matters to be Considered: The Commission and Committee will meet in 
public session to discuss a broad range of marine ecosystem and marine 
mammal matters. While subject to change, major issues that the 
Commission plans to consider at the meeting include the effects of 
climate change, coastal development, and contaminants and disease on 
marine mammal populations; Alaska Native subsistence and co-management; 
issues related to fishing and interactions with marine mammals; and 
conservation of certain marine mammal species, including Stellar sea 
lions, northern fur seals, harbor seals, ice seals, Pacific walruses, 
polar bears, sea otters, Cook Inlet beluga whales, North Pacific right 
whales, and bowhead whales.

FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT: David Cottingham, Executive Director, 
Marine Mammal Commission, 4340 East-West Highway, Room 905, Bethesda, 
MD 20814, 301-504-0087.

    Dated: September 19, 2005.
David Cottingham,
Executive Director.
[FR Doc. 05-18950 Filed 9-19-05; 12:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6820-31-M
MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-10-00792-CV

Willie MAZON and Deborah Mazon,

Appellants

v.

HOMEQ SERVICING CORPORATION,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 2, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 358,991

Honorable Irene Rios, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Rebecca Simmons, Justice

Steven C. Hilbig, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Delivered and Filed: December 1, 2010

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

Appellants’ notice of appeal states their intention to appeal the trial court’s order signed 

on October 15, 2010, denying appellants’ motion for default judgment. Because the trial court’s 

order did not dispose of all pending claims and, therefore, was not final and appealable, this 

court ordered appellants to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of 

jurisdiction. Appellants’ response asserts that the trial court initially entered a final default 

judgment on August 9, 2010; therefore, the trial court’s October 15, 2010 order was signed 
04-10-00792-CV

- 2 -

outside its plenary power and was void. The trial court’s August 9, 2010 order; however, did not 

address the damages issue in the underlying cause. Because the order did not dispose of the 

damages issue, it was not a final order. See In re Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse of 

McAllen, Inc., 167 S.W.3d 827, 830-31 (Tex. 2005); Houston Health Clubs, Inc. v. First Court of 

Appeals, 722 S.W.2d 692, 693 (Tex. 1986); see also TEX. R. CIV. P. 241, 243 (providing for final 

default judgment to be rendered after damages are assessed). Because the trial court in the 

underlying cause has not signed a final, appealable order, this appeal is dismissed for lack of 

jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM
Order entered September 23, 2021

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 20

- 01081

- CV

BARBARA LINDSEY , Appellant

V.

MAX F. ADLER, M.D., P.A. F/K/A PARK CITIES DERMATOLOGY CENTER A/K/A COPPELL DERMATOLOGY; MAX F. ADLER; LINDA L.

WHITE; AND JOHN DOES , Appellee s

On Appeal from the 160th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 19

- 07358

O RDER

Before the Court is appellant’s September 21, 2021 uno pposed motion to

amend and supplement her opening brief to correct an error in the duplication of

page 26 of the appendix to the brief. We GRANT the motion and ORDER the

amended brief be filed no later than October 5, 2021.

The deadline for filing appelle es ’ brief (s) is RESET to November 4, 2021.

/s/ CRAIG SMITH JUSTICE
AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

      WHEREAS,  Mid-Continent  Federal  Savings  Bank (the  "Bank") and Larry R.
Goddard (the "Employee")  previously  entered into an Employment  Agreement (the
"Agreement") dated March 21, 1995, and

      WHEREAS,  Section 14 of this  Agreement  provides that  amendments to this
Agreement may be made in writing and signed by both parties,

      NOW  THEREFORE,  BE IT RESOLVED  that the Agreement be amended by adoption
and execution of this Amendment to the Agreement as follows.

      1.    Revision to Section 4 of the Agreement by inclusion of
            the following phrase at the end of Section 5 as follows:

            "Notwithstanding  anything  herein to the contrary,  the  expiration
            date of the term of this  Agreement  shall  be as of June 27,  1998,
            except as may be  extend  beyond  that date by future  action of the
            Board within its sole discretion in accordance with this Agreement."


      As Secretary to the Bank, I hereby  certify that the  foregoing  Amendment
was  adopted  and  ratified  by a  majority  vote of a  meeting  of the Board of
Directors of the Bank, held on June 27, 1996, a quorum being present.


                                    /s/Cheryl Wilkerson
                                    Cheryl Wilkerson, Secretary

SEAL

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF,  the parties to the Agreement dated March 21, 1995, do
hereby execute this Amendment to the Agreement on this 27 th day of June 1996.


                                          Mid-Continent Federal Savings
                                          Bank

                                    By:   /s/Ken Dellett




                                          /s/Larry R. Goddard
                                          Larry R. Goddard, Employee

ATTEST:


/s/Cheryl Wilkerson
Cheryl Wilkerson, Secretary

SEAL