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

(2004/C 78 E/0550)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3361/03

by Koenraad Dillen (NI) to the Commission

(14 November 2003)

Subject:   Ijzeren Rijn railway line

The Ijzeren Rijn line is an example of a European transport route which is useful for an open economy. It links not only the port of Antwerp but also the ports of Ghent, Zeebrugge and Ostend with the Ruhr and the German hinterland. The Ijzeren Rijn exists and has proved its usefulness in the past, but has ceased to be used for several decades because the cost of environmental improvements such as the building of tunnels in certain places would be far too high to permit the line to become profitable in the near future. The Netherlands Government has been using this argument as a pretext to prevent any action on the matter. However, because of the growing transport problems and the exponential growth in container traffic, Flanders feels the need to bring this line back into operation. Germany, and particularly the Land of North Rhine-Westphalia, have supported Flanders for years in calling for this economically necessary development. However, unfortunately the Netherlands has adopted a policy of obstruction with regard to it, which is inspired by its own plans to create a modern link between the port of Rotterdam and the Ruhr by means of the exorbitantly expensive and environmentally undesirable Betuwe line, which will not benefit any other European country economically. Europe now formally recognises the importance of international railway lines.

Is the Commission monitoring developments with regard to the Ijzeren Rijn line?

Will the Commission try to secure a breakthrough at European level with regard to this vital matter, such as to arrive at a solution satisfactory to all parties?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(16 December 2003)

The Commission monitors the developments in relation to the Iron Rhine (Ijzeren Rijn) link between Antwerp and the German Ruhr area with great interest. The Commission has included this link under priority project No 24: Railway axis Lyon/Genova-Basel-Duisburg-Rotterdam/Antwerpen in its proposal for the revision of the Guidelines for the Trans-European Transport Networks (TEN-T) (1). The countries involved have committed themselves to implement this project, which completion is foreseen for 2010. It should be observed though that the Betuwelijn link was part of the first serie of TEN-T projects, adopted under the so-called Essen project list in 1996.

Belgium and the Netherlands have recently decided to submit their conflict on the Iron Rhine to the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague. The case is now at the pleading stage, and a ruling is expected for mid-2004. Hopefully, the ruling of the Court will constitute the basis for a satisfactory solution.

----

(1)  COM(2003) 564 final.

----
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.                  

###### Department of Housing and Urban Development

          - [Docket No. FR-4980-N-39]

# AGENCY:

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This Notice identifies unutilized, underutilized, excess, and surplus Federal property reviewed by HUD for suitability for possible use to assist the homeless.

# EFFECTIVE DATE:

September 30, 2005.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kathy Ezzell, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Room 7262, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410; telephone (202) 708-1234; TTY number for the hearing- and speech-impaired (202) 708-2565, (these telephone numbers are not toll-free), or call the toll-free Title V information line at 1-800-927-7588.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    In accordance with the December 12, 1988 court order in                     *National Coalition for the Homeless*                     v.                     *Veterans Administration,*                     No. 88-2503-OG (D.D.C.), HUD publishes a Notice, on a weekly basis, identifying unutilized, underutilized, excess and surplus Federal buildings and real property that HUD has reviewed for suitability for use to assist the homeless. Today's Notice is for the purpose of announcing that no additional properties have been determined suitable or unsuitable this week.                

      ( print page 57316)    
Dated: September 22, 2005.

Mark R. Johnston,

Director, Office of Special Needs Assistance Programs.

[FR Doc. 05-19298 Filed 9-29-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4210-29-M
Exhibit 32.1  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Innocap, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended July 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, B. Alva Schoomer, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:  1. The Report fully complies with requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.   /s/ B Alva Schoomer B. Alva Schoomer Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer  February 13, 2007
STATE of North Carolina v. Stephen Spencer DUBOSKY.

No. COA15-819.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

March 1, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

No Error.
STATE v. Antwan ANTHONY

324A16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 16, 2017

*878Kathryn L. VandenBerg, Assistant Appellant Defender, Jonathan E. Broun, Attorney at Law, for Anthony, Antwan.

Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, Kimberly S. Robb, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 9th of June 2017 by Defendant for Extension of Time to Prepare Trial Transcript:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 16th of June 2017."

Court reporter shall have up to and including the 21st day of July 2017 to prepare and deliver transcript to counsel.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-27-1998
<CASH>                                           1,874
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   27,417
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      9,400
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                44,765
<PP&E>                                          10,371
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  83,948
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           12,560
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            75
<OTHER-SE>                                      53,864
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    83,948
<SALES>                                         25,128
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                25,128
<CGS>                                           16,004
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   20,461
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 333
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,334
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,589
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,745
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,745
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .36
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .36
        
  



</TABLE>
NO. 07-08-0416-CV

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL B

	OCTOBER 21, 2008

	______________________________

	IN RE BARRY DWAYNE MINNFEE,

									Relator  

	_________________________________

	ON ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

	_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ., 

	Pending before this court is the application of Barry Dwayne Minnfee for a writ of mandamus.  He requests that we compel “[the] trial court to determine was [sic] indigent and if so appoint an attorney to represent [Minnfee] on this motion for forensic DNA testing,” among other things.  We deny the application for the reasons that follow.

	First, rules of procedure obligate one seeking mandamus relief to accompany his petition with an appendix.  Tex. R. App. P. 52.3(j).  The latter must include, among other things, a certified or sworn copy of the document showing the matter complained of.  In this case, the document showing the matter complained of would be the motion requesting DNA testing and the need for appointed counsel.  This Minnfee failed to do.  

	Second, nothing of record indicates that the motion for DNA testing and request for appointed counsel was brought to the attention of the district court.  Simply put, before mandamus relief may issue, the petitioner must establish that the district court 1) had a legal duty to perform a non-discretionary act, 2) was asked to perform the act, and 3) failed or refused to do it.  O’Connor v. First Court of Appeals, 837 S.W.2d 94, 97 (Tex. 1992); In re Chavez, 62 S.W.3d 225, 228 (Tex. App.–Amarillo 2001, orig. proceeding).  Given this, it is encumbent upon Minnfee to illustrate that the district court received and was aware of his motion.1  This is so because a court cannot be faulted for doing nothing when it is or was unaware of the need to act.  Here, Minnfee states in his petition that he “directed” the motion to the district court on June 9, 2008, but whether the court was ever made aware of it is unknown.  Lacking that information, we cannot simply assume that the district court knew of its duty to act and neglected to perform it. Thus, Minnfee has not fulfilled his burden to illustrate that the trial court refused to act.

	Accordingly, the application for writ of mandamus pending before this court is denied.

							Per Curiam
----

(2004/C 78 E/0848)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3298/03

by Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(3 November 2003)

Subject:   Effect of climatic change on cod stocks

There is widespread anecdotal evidence, supported by the fishermen with the real experience of fishing northern waters, that stocks of cod are moving north as sea temperatures increase. This is supported by scientific research including, notably, that which was published in Science Magazine vol. 296 No 5573 relating to work done by the Sir Alister Hardy Foundation for Ocean Science.

Does the Commission intend to factor in any such new evidence when making its recommendations to the Council prior to this December's Fisheries Council meeting?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(19 November 2003)

The Commission values the knowledge and experience of commercial fishermen and encourages them to make their views available to the scientific agencies that advise the Commission as well as directly to the Commission. However, when making a basis for conservation proposals that will have a large impact on fishing communities, it is appropriate to accord higher importance to the results of systematic and scientifically-designed surveys and monitoring systems than to anecdotal observations.

The work referred to indicates a northward shift in copepod distributions and the effect of this on distributions of fish is not clear. However, both science and industry concur that the remaining aggregations of cod are now located further north than their historic distribution patterns. In previous cases of stock collapse it has been the case that as fish stocks become smaller their area of distribution shrinks as the last few fish aggregate in the most favourable areas.

Indications of a reduction in the distribution of fish onto a smaller area are therefore an additional warning sign that the stock is at a low level and very vulnerable to exploitation.

The Commission will effectively have such factors in mind when preparing relevant conservation proposals.

----
State of North Carolina v. Jamar Vonzell Bynes

No. COA16-245

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: November 15, 2016

NO ERROR.
NOC-06.30.2014-Ex101




Exhibit 10.1
Board of Director Compensation
Fees and Expenses
(effective as of May 21, 2014)
		
	Retainer:
	Retainer fees are paid quarterly, at the end of each quarter. Fees are as follows:


	
		
	Annual cash retainer:
	$120,000

	Additional retainer for Lead Independent Director:
	$25,000

	Additional retainer for Audit Committee:
	$10,000

	Additional retainer for Audit Committee chair:
	$20,000

	Additional retainer for Compensation Committee chair:
	$15,000

	Additional retainer for Governance Committee chair:
	$15,000

	Additional retainer for Policy Committee chair:
	$7,500






		
	Equity Grant:
	Directors are awarded an annual retainer of $135,000 in deferred stock units, awarded quarterly. The deferred stock units will be paid at the conclusion of board service, or earlier, as specified by the director, if he has five or more years of service.


Directors may elect to defer payment of all or a portion of their remaining annual cash retainer and other annual committee retainer fees into the deferred stock unit account.
<PAGE>

                               POWER OF ATTORNEY


     KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned person whose
signature appears below constitutes and appoints David K. Moskowitz as the true
and lawful attorney-in-fact and agent of the undersigned, with full power of
substitution and resubstitution, for and in the name, place and stead of the
undersigned, in any and all capacities, to sign the Annual Report on Form 10-K
of Dish, Ltd., a Nevada corporation, for the year ended December 31, 1997, and
any and all amendments thereto and to file the same, with all exhibits thereto
and other documents in connection therewith, with the United States Securities
and Exchange Commission, and hereby grants to said attorney-in-fact and agent
full power and authority to do and perform each and every act and thing
requisite and necessary to be done in connection therewith, as fully as to all
intents and purposes as the undersigned might or could do in person, hereby
ratifying and confirming all that said attorney-in-fact and agent, or his
substitute, may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

     Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, this
Power Attorney has been signed by the following person in the capacity and on
the date indicated.

         Signature                       Title                  Date
         ---------                       -----                  ----

/S/ JAMES DEFRANCO                      Director            March 27, 1998
----------------------------------
James DeFranco
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

  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 September 30, 2003 (the "Report"), the
undersigned, Milton A. Alpern, 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) of 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/ Milton A. Alpern
                                                -------------------------
     Dated: November 12, 2003                       Milton A. Alpern

                                                    Chief Financial Officer and
                                                      Treasurer
# C_2008051EN.01003502.xml

| 23.2.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/35

---

Action brought on 7 December 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Poland

(Case C-547/07)

(2008/C 51/58)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Recchia and K. Herrmann, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Republic of Poland

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | by failing to classify as special protection areas (SPAs) for birds all areas which, on the application of ornithological criteria, appear to be the most appropriate for the conservation of bird species, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1) and (2) of Directive 79/409/EEC (1) of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds; |
| --- | --- |

—

by failing to classify as special protection areas (SPAs) for birds all areas which, on the application of ornithological criteria, appear to be the most appropriate for the conservation of bird species, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1) and (2) of Directive 79/409/EEC (1) of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds;

1

| — | order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The obligation to carry out the classification of special protection areas for birds (SPAs) was imposed on the Republic of Poland at the time of its accession to the European Union.

In December 2004 an ornithological inventory was published which detailed the situation of birds of European significance in Poland (IBA 2004) and designated, on the basis of ornithological criteria, 140 areas of crucial importance for the conservation of birds.

Of the areas included on the IBA 2004 list, 15 were not classified by the Republic of Poland as SPAs, notwithstanding the fact that the Polish authorities failed to produce any scientific evidence to justify that failure to designate them.

Furthermore, the areas of 8 SPAs are much smaller than their equivalents on the IBA 2004 inventory, with the result that outside their limits there are areas which, according to IBA 2004, would appear to be most suitable for the conservation of bird species.

In addition, in September 2007 the Polish authorities, without notifying the Commission, reduced the areas of 5 designated SPAs in a manner impacting significantly on bird conservation.

---

(1)  OJ 1979 L 103, p. 1.

1

---
# C_2008128EN.01003701.xml

| 24.5.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 128/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.5.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/37

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 25 February 2008 — Cemex UK Cement Ltd v Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-313/07) (1)

1

(2008/C 128/78)

Language of the case: English

Language of the case: English

The President of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 235, 6.10.2007.

1

---
# C_2008107EN.01002501.xml

| 26.4.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 107/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 107/25

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 March 2008 — Rossi Ferreras v Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-107/07 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Staff cases - Officials - Career development report - Appraisal year 2003 - Assessment of facts - Burden of proof and production of evidence - Appeal inadmissible - Appeal unfounded)

(2008/C 107/41)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Francisco Rossi Ferreras (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Frabetti and S. Martin. lawyers)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Joris and K. Herrmann, agents)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Appeal against judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 1 February 2007 in Case F-42/05 Rossi Ferreras v Commission, not yet published in ECR, for the annulment of that judgment.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | orders Mr Francisco Rossi Ferreras to bear his own costs and to pay the costs of the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

orders Mr Francisco Rossi Ferreras to bear his own costs and to pay the costs of the Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 129, 9.6.2007.

1

---
1... See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 2-08-310-CR

TOMMY JOSEPH CHATMAN APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

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

FROM THE 371ST DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

Appellant Tommy Joseph Chatman pleaded guilty to two counts of

possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance of four grams or more

but less than 200 grams. Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, Chatman was

sentenced to ten years’ confinement for one count and eight years’

confinement for the other count. The trial court entered its certification of
2

Chatman’s right to appeal in accordance with rule 25.2(a)(2). See Tex. R. App.

P. 25.2(a)(2). The certification states that this “is a plea-bargain case, and the

defendant has NO right of appeal.”

On August 27, 2008, Chatman filed a notice of appeal. On September

3, 2008, we notified Chatman’s counsel that the certification indicating his

client had no right to appeal had been filed in this court and that this appeal

would be dismissed unless Chatman or any party desiring to continue the

appeal filed a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal. See Tex.

R. App. P. 25.2(d). Chatman responded with a copy of a “Motion of Appeal”

and stated that he was told he could “appeal under Attorney Ineffective.”

Rule 25.2(a)(2) limits the right to appeal in a plea bargain case to those

matters that were raised by written motion filed and ruled on before trial or

after getting the trial court’s permission to appeal. Tex. R. App. P.

25.2(a)(2)(A), (B). Chatman does not contend that he did either of these

things. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d),

43.2(f).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: HOLMAN, GARDNER, and WALKER, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: October 2, 2008