alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Official Journal C 278A/2011

| | ISSN 1725-2423
  doi:10.3000/17252423.CA2011.278.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 278A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5422 September 2011 |

ISSN 1725-2423

doi:10.3000/17252423.CA2011.278.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 278A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5422 September 2011

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Announcements |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) |
| 2011/C 278A/01 | Reserve list — Open competition — EPSO/AD/185/10 — English-language (EN) translators (AD 5) | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO)

2011/C 278A/01

Reserve list — Open competition — EPSO/AD/185/10 — English-language (EN) translators (AD 5)

1

---

REVIEW OF COMPETITION C A OJs

Please find below the list of C A published during the present year.

Unless otherwise indicated, OJs are published in all language versions.

| 19 | (PL) |
| --- | --- |
| 24 | |
| 35 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 37 | (PL/RO) |
| 60 | |
| 68 | |
| 76 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 82 | |
| 91 | |
| 98 | |
| 114 | (DA) |
| 121 | (DA) |
| 122 | |
| 135 | |
| 140 | (BG/ET/HU/MT/PL/SL/SV) |
| 142 | |
| 146 | |
| 147 | (EN/IT/MT/SV) |
| 155 | (EN/ES/ET/FR/NL/PL/PT/SK/SL/SV) |
| 156 | |
| 157 | |
| 162 | |
| 169 | (EN) |
| 177 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 180 | (BG/RO) |
| 181 | (DA) |
| 183 | (SL) |
| 185 | |
| 193 | (BG/RO) |
| 198 | (CS/HU/LT/MT/PL/SK) |
| 206 | (CS/ES/LV/MT/SV) |
| 208 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 221 | |
| 222 | (BG/RO) |
| 223 | |
| 229 | |
| 257 | |
| 258 | |
| 270 | |
| 271 | |
| 278 | (EN) |

19

(PL)

24

35

(DE/EN/FR)

37

(PL/RO)

60

68

76

(DE/EN/FR)

82

91

98

114

(DA)

121

(DA)

122

135

140

(BG/ET/HU/MT/PL/SL/SV)

142

146

147

(EN/IT/MT/SV)

155

(EN/ES/ET/FR/NL/PL/PT/SK/SL/SV)

156

157

162

169

(EN)

177

(DE/EN/FR)

180

(BG/RO)

181

(DA)

183

(SL)

185

193

(BG/RO)

198

(CS/HU/LT/MT/PL/SK)

206

(CS/ES/LV/MT/SV)

208

(DE/EN/FR)

221

222

(BG/RO)

223

229

257

258

270

271

278

(EN)

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
STATE of North Carolina v. Ferrante Vermond PERRY

No. COA17-1223

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: June 5, 2018

NO ERROR.
STATE of North Carolina v. Anthony Terrell CHISHOLM, Defendant.

No. COA17-797

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: July 17, 2018

NO ERROR.
STATE of North Carolina, v. Anthony Paul SMITH, Defendant.

No. COA 17-496

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: January 2, 2018

AFFIRMED.
#### Terry and Ruth CLELAND v. CITY OF LAKE CHARLES, et al. Terry and Ruth Cleland v. City of Lake Charles, et al.

No. 2003-C-1385.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 19, 2003.

In re Calcasieu Parish School Board; Washington National Insurance Company; — Defendants); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Calca-sieu, 14th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 92-5347; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No(s). 02-805, 01-1463.

Denied.
Order filed, August 17, 2016.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-16-00502-CV

____________

DONALD KILPATRICK, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS ASSIGNEE OF 

CAUSES OF ACTION OF JEREMY DICKS, Appellant

V.

ERIC L. ESTES, ADRIANA POTOCZNIAK, ET AL AND DUETSCHE 

BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY AS TRUSTEE FOR SOUNDVIEW 

HOME LOAN TRUST 2006-OPT5 ASSET-BACKED CERTIFICATES 

SERIES 2006-OPT5, HOMEWARD RESIDENTIAL, INC F/K/A 

AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE SERVICING, INC., Appellee

On Appeal from the 55th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2015-31821A

ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case was due August 02, 2016. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 35.1. The court has not received a request to extend time for filing the 
record. The record has not been filed with the court. Because the reporter’s record 

has not been filed timely, we issue the following order.

We order Gina Wilburn, the official court reporter, to file the record in this 

appeal within 30 days of the date of this order. 

PER CURIAM
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-08-00269-CV

Paul Tovar, Appellant

v.

Premier Capital, LLC, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 353RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. D-1-GN-03-000454, HONORABLE STEPHEN YELENOSKY, JUDGE PRESIDING

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

Paul Tovar has filed Appellant’s Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss Appeal Due to

Agreement to Settle and Compromise. He certifies that Premier Capital, LLC has agreed to and does

not oppose his motion. We grant the motion and dismiss this appeal.

 

G. Alan Waldrop, Justice

Before Justices Patterson, Waldrop and Henson

Dismissed on Appellant’s Motion

Filed: October 22, 2008
Exhibit 32.2


American Campus Communities, Inc.


Certification of Chief Financial Officer


Pursuant to 18 U. S. C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002




I, Jonathan A. Graf, Chief Financial Officer of American Campus Communities, Inc. (the “Company”), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:





(i)The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2012 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and





(ii)The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




Dated:   May 10, 2012
/s/ Jonathan A. GrafJonathan A. GrafExecutive Vice President, Chief 
Financial Officer, Treasurer and Secretary
STATE of North Carolina v. Joshua Robert LAIL

No. COA18-125

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: July 17, 2018

AFFIRMED.
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Adrian BLANTON, Appellant.

No. ED 81773.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.

April 29, 2003.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied June 19, 2003.

Application for Transfer Denied Aug. 26, 2003.

Bradley S. Dede, Clayton, MO, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Stephanie Morrell, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.

Before PAUL J. SIMON, P.J., GARY M. GAERTNER, SR., J. and KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, J.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Adrian Blanton (“defendant”) appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of Franklin County, following a jury trial, finding him guilty of child molestation in the first degree, section 566.067 RSMo 2000. Defendant was sentenced to five years imprisonment. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. As an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose, we affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).
EXHIBIT 99.8













CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS
 
 We hereby consent to (i) the inclusion in Silver Standard Resources Inc.’s  Annual Report on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2012 and (ii) incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-185498) of our report dated February 28, 2013 on the consolidated financial statements of the Company, comprising  the consolidated statement of financial position as at December 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011 and the consolidated statements of income, comprehensive income, changes in shareholders’ equity and cash flows  for the years then ended December 31, 2012 and 2011; and on the effectiveness of the internal control over financial reporting of Silver Standard Resources Inc.  as of December 31, 2012.
  /s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
 
 Chartered Accountants
 March 15, 2013




























PricewaterhouseCoopers LLPPricewaterhouseCoopers Place, 250 Howe Street, Suite 700, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada V6C 3S7

T: +1 604 806 7000, F: +1 604 806 7806, www.pwc.com/ca
 
 “PwC” refers to PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, an Ontario limited liability partnership.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1142 

CA 12-00061 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, FAHEY, CARNI, AND VALENTINO, JJ. 

 

KAREN MCGRATH AND STEVEN FOLEY, 

PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

TOWN OF IRONDEQUOIT, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

(APPEAL NO. 1.)

 

LIPPMAN O’CONNOR, BUFFALO (GERARD E. O’CONNOR OF COUNSEL), FOR

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

MICHAEL J. TUOHEY, ROCHESTER, FOR PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS.

 

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Ann

Marie Taddeo, J.), entered July 13, 2011. The order, insofar as

appealed from, denied in part the motion of defendant for summary

judgment. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: These consolidated appeals arise from an action for,

inter alia, private nuisance, which plaintiffs commenced to recover

damages arising from the cost of repairs to their parcel of real

property, as well as the diminution of the value of their property.

Plaintiffs alleged that defendant’s adjacent parcel of property

collapsed, causing the subsidence of plaintiffs’ property. Defendant

contends in appeal No. 1 that Supreme Court erred in denying that part

of its motion for summary judgment dismissing the private nuisance

cause of action, and defendant contends in appeal No. 2 that the court

erred in granting plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend their

complaint.

We reject defendant’s contention in appeal No. 1 that the court

should have granted that part of its motion for summary judgment

dismissing the private nuisance cause of action. In support of that

part of the motion, defendant contended that the sloped land was a

naturally occurring event for which it could not be held liable, and

that it was immune from this type of action pursuant to the municipal

immunity doctrine set forth in Weiss v Fote (7 NY2d 579, 584, rearg

denied 8 NY2d 934). We agree with the court that defendant failed to

meet its initial burden on either prong of the motion (see generally

Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324). Defendant’s further

contentions with respect to appeal No. 1 are not properly before us
-2- 1142 

CA 12-00061 

inasmuch as they are raised for the first time on appeal (see

Ciesinski v Town of Aurora, 202 AD2d 984, 985).

Contrary to the contention of defendant in appeal No. 2, the

court did not abuse its discretion in granting plaintiffs’ motion for

leave to amend their complaint inasmuch as defendant failed to

demonstrate that it will be prejudiced by the amendment, and the

amendment is not palpably insufficient on its face (see Hogarth v City

of Syracuse [appeal No. 1], 238 AD2d 887, 887, lv dismissed 90 NY2d

935, lv denied 93 NY2d 812). 

Entered: November 16, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
**Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 November 2008 – Commission v Italy**

**(Case C‐46/07)**

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Article 141 EC – Social Policy – Equal pay for male and female workers – Concept of ‘pay’ – Officials’ retirement scheme)

Social policy – Male and female workers – Equal pay (Art. 141 EC; Social Policy Agreement 1992, Art. 6(3)) (see paras 35-59)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Infringement of Article 141 EC – Infringement of the principle of equal pay for male and female workers – National legislation providing for a retirement age for public officials which varies according to sex. |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Declares that by maintaining provisions under which the age at which officials have the right to receive the old-age pension varies according to whether they are men or women, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 141 EC; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs. |
STATE v. Richard W. WILLIAMS

291P17-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 28, 2017

Richard W. Williams, for Williams, Richard W.

*532Kristin Jo Uicker, Assistant Attorney General, Roger A. Echols, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 24th of August 2017 by Defendant to Proceed In Forma Pauperis:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 28th of September 2017."

Beasley, J. and Morgan, J. recused
In the MATTER OF: P.S.

No. 417P17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 9, 2018

Jillian C. Katz, Assistant Appellant Defender, for P.S.

Glenn Gerding, Appellate Defender

Josephine N. Tetteh, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina

Ariel E. Harris, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for Strategic Behavioral Center

Milind Kumar Dongre, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for State of North Carolina

David W. Andrews, Assistant Appellate Defender

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by the Respondent on the 12th of December 2017 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30, and the motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question filed by the State of NC, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the motion to dismiss the appeal is

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of May 2018."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 12th of December 2017 by Respondent 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 9th of May 2018."
#### Eddie Charles LYKES, Sr. v. STATE of Alabama.

CR-01-0974.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

Aug. 30, 2002.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 18, 2002.

Certiorari Denied Jan. 24, 2003 Alabama Supreme Court 1020191.

Daniel Gary Hamm, Montgomery, for appellant.

William H. Pryor, Jr., atty. gen., and J. Thomas Leverette, asst. atty. gen., for ap-pellee.

BASCHAB, Judge.

AFFIRMED BY UNPUBLISHED MEMORANDUM.

McMILLAN, P.J., and WISE, J., concur; COBB, J., concurs in the result, with opinion; SHAW, J., concurs in the result.

*1042COBB, Judge,

concurring in the result.

Although I agree with the result reached by the majority in its unpublished memorandum in this case, I write specially to state that I believe that the appellant’s argument addressed in Part III of the memorandum, which concerns the trial court’s denial of his request to send certain exhibits to the jury room during the jury’s deliberations, is preserved for appellate review. The record reveals a lengthy discussion during which defense counsel made his wishes known and the trial court denied the request. I believe the exchange between defense counsel and the trial court was sufficient “to put the trial judge on notice of the alleged error [and gave him] an opportunity to correct it before the case [was] submitted to the jury.” *Ex parte Works,*640 So.2d 1056, 1058 (Ala.1994).

Moreover, the trial court’s decision not to allow certain exhibits into the jury room was in error because the trial court based its decision on its erroneous conclusion that the exhibits had never been admitted into evidence. However, the record reflects that the exhibits, in fact, had been entered into evidence. (R. 219, 221.)

Although the trial court was mistaken, I believe that the error was harmless. Lykes maintains that the exhibits in question would have shown that the 13-year-old victim was engaging in sexual intercourse with him in exchange for pecuniary gain, and that, when he stopped giving her money, she “cried rape.” This evidence, he asserts, would have proven that the sexual intercourse was consensual and that it was not by forcible compulsion. However, although Lykes was indicted for first-degree rape under § 13A-6-61(a)(l), Ala. Code 1975, which requires proof of forcible compulsion, the jury found Lykes guilty of second-degree rape under § 13A-6-62(a)(1). Section 13A-6-62(a)(l) provides:

> “A person commits the crime of rape in the second degree if ... [b]eing 16 years old or older, he or she engages in sexual intercourse with a member of the opposite sex less than 16 and more than 12 years old; provided, however, the actor is at least two years older than the member of the opposite sex.”

Thus, the jury exonerated Lykes of rape requiring forcible compulsion, even without the exhibits in question being sent to the jury room during deliberations. Lykes has failed to allege or prove how the outcome of his trial would have been different if the exhibits had been sent to the jury room; therefore, I do not believe that Lykes was prejudiced by the trial court’s apparent error.

For the reasons stated above, I concur only in the result reached by the majority.
SOMA TECHNOLOGY, INC. v. DALAMAGAS, et al.

308A17-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 20, 2017

Daniel F.E. Smith, Attorney at Law, Robert J. King, III, Attorney at Law, Jonathan M. Shapiro, Attorney at Law, for Soma Technology, Inc.

Sam McGee, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for Desai, Hiren.

*146Paul J. Stevens, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for Dalamagas, Photios, et al.

R. Andrew Murray, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

***Amended***

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Plaintiff's Brief filed on the 20th of October 2017 by Defendant (Hiren Desai) :

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of October 2017."

Plaintiff shall have up to and including the 15th day of December 2017 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 10, 2019

No. 04-19-00286-CR

Terence W. SPENCER, Jr.,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 399th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018CR1678

Honorable Frank J. Castro, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The trial court’s certification in this appeal states that “this criminal case is a plea-bargain 

case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” The clerk’s record contains a written plea 

bargain, and the punishment assessed did not exceed the punishment recommended by the 

prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant; therefore, the trial court’s certification accurately 

reflects that the criminal case is a plea-bargain case. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). Rule 

25.2(d) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provides, “The appeal must be dismissed if a 

certification that shows the defendant has the right of appeal has not been made part of the record 

under these rules.” TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d). It is therefore ORDERED that this appeal will be 

dismissed pursuant to Rule 25.2(d) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure unless appellant 

causes an amended trial court certification to be filed within thirty (30) days from the date of 

this order showing appellant has the right of appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d); 37.1; see also 

Daniels v. State, 110 S.W.3d 174 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, order). All other appellate 

deadlines are SUSPENDED pending our resolution of the certification issue.

_________________________________

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 10th day of June, 2019.
___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
Written Statement of the Chief Executive Officer
                         Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350


         Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, I,
the undersigned Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Regency Centers, L.P.
(the "Company"), hereby certify that:

        1.      the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended
December 31, 2002 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

        2.      that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.


/s/ Martin E. Stein, Jr.
Martin E. Stein, Jr.
March 13, 2003
#### Bridgett WHITLOW v. The SHREVEPORT TIMES.

No. 2003-C-1406.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 19, 2003.

In re Whitlow, Bridgett K.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review Office of Workers’ Compensation, Dist.-2, No. 01-4780; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 02-1215.

Denied.
Exhibit 23.1

Consent of Independent Auditors


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement (Form S-3 No. 33-43267), the Registration Statement (Form S-3
No. 33-94782), the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-22211) of
Liberty Property Trust and Liberty Property Limited Partnership and the
Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-14139), the Registration
Statement (Form S-3 No. 33-94036), the Registration Statement (Form S-8
No. 333-44149) of Liberty Property Trust and in the related Prospectus
of our report dated February 8, 2000, with respect to the consolidated
financial statements and schedule of Liberty Property Trust included in
this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1999.



Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
March 6, 2000



									Exhibit 23.2

Consent of Independent Auditors


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement (Form S-3 No. 33-43267), the Registration Statement (Form S-3
No. 33-94782), the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-22211) of
Liberty Property Trust and Liberty Property Limited Partnership and in
the related Prospectus of our report dated February 8, 2000, with
respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Liberty
Property Limited Partnership included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K)
for the year ended December 31, 1999.



Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
March 6, 2000