alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2006249EN.01001001.xml

| 14.10.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 249/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.10.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 249/10

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 May 2006 — Blom and Others v Commission

(Case T-87/94) (1)

1

(Action for damages - Non-contractual liability - Milk - Additional levy - Reference quantity - Producers who entered into a non-marketing undertaking - SLOM 1983 producers - Failure to resume production on expiry of the undertaking)

(2006/C 249/26)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicants: J.C. Blom (Blokker, Netherlands) and the other applicants whose names appear in the annex to the judgment (represented by: initially H. Bronkhorst and E. Pijnacker Hordijk, lawyers, and subsequently by E. Pijnacker Hordijk)

Applicants:

Defendants: Council of the European Union (represented by: initially A. Brautigam and A.-M. Colaert, Agents, and subsequently by A.-M. Colaert) and Commission of the European Communities (represented by: initially T. van Rijn, Agent, assisted by H.-J. Rabe, lawyer, and subsequently by T. van Rijn)

Defendants:

Re:

Application for compensation, under Article 178 of the EC Treaty (now Article 235 EC) and the second paragraph of Article 215 of the EC Treaty (now the second paragraph of Article 288 EC), for damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of his having been prevented from marketing milk by virtue of Council Regulation (EEC) No 857/84 of 31 March 1984 adopting general rules for the application of the levy referred to in Article 5c of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 in the milk and milk products sector (OJ 1984 L 90, p. 13), as supplemented by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1371/84 of 16 May 1984 laying down detailed rules for the application of the additional levy referred to in Article 5c of Regulation No 804/68 (OJ 1984 L 132, p. 11).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action, in so far as it was brought by Mr J.C. Blom; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action, in so far as it was brought by Mr J.C. Blom;

| 2. | Orders the applicant to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the applicant to pay the costs;

| 3. | Reserves the disposal of the action in the same case, in so far as it was brought by the applicants whose names appear in the annex. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Reserves the disposal of the action in the same case, in so far as it was brought by the applicants whose names appear in the annex.

---

(1)  OJ C 90, 26.3.1994.

1

---
H. Res. 261

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

July 27, 1999.

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule

XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the

Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of

the bill (H.R. 2605) making appropriations for energy and

water development for the fiscal year ending September 30,

2000, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill

shall be dispensed with. Points of order against consideration

of the bill for failure to comply with clause 4 of rule XIII

are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and

shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by

the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee

on Appropriations. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. Points of

order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply with

clause 2 or clause 5(a) of rule XXI are waived except as follows: page 7, line 1, through page 9, line 2; page 36, lines

21 through 25. During consideration of the bill for amend-
2

•HRES 261 EH

ment, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition on the basis of whether the Member offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in the

portion of the Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed shall

be considered as read. The Chairman of the Committee of the

Whole may: (1) postpone until a time during further consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any amendment; and (2) reduce to five minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any postponed question that follows another electronic vote without

intervening business, provided that the minimum time for

electronic voting on the first in any series of questions shall

be 15 minutes. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill

for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill

to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on

the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Attest:

Clerk.
§ 273.180 Are there disclosure requirements for contracts? ( a ) Unless otherwise required by law, the Bureau may not place restrictions on contractors that will limit public access to the contractor's records except when records must remain confidential.
( b ) A contractor must make all reports and information concerning the contract available to the Indian people that the contract affects. Reports and information may be withheld from disclosure only when both of the following conditions exist: ( 1 ) The reports and information fall within one of the following exempt categories: ( i ) Specifically required by statute or Executive Order to be kept secret;
( ii ) Commercial or financial information obtained from a person or firm on a privileged or confidential basis; or
( iii ) Personnel, medical, social, psychological, academic achievement and similar files where disclosure would be a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy; and
( 2 ) Disclosure is prohibited by statute or Executive Order or sound grounds exist for using the exemption given in paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
( c ) A request to inspect or copy reports and information must be in writing and reasonably describe the reports and information requested. The request may be delivered or mailed to the contractor. Within 10 working days after receiving the request, the contractor must determine whether to grant or deny the request and immediately notify the request of the determination.
( d ) The time limit for making a determination may be extended up to an additional 10 working days for good reason. The requester must be notified in writing of the extension, reasons for the extension, and date on which the determination is expected to be made.
#### In the Matter of Hazel P.R., Respondent, v Paul J.P., Appellant.

[824 NYS2d 628]

Order, Family Court, New York County (George L. Jurow, J.), entered on or about September 21, 2004, which, after a fact-finding hearing, granted an order of protection for five years to petitioner, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In view of the testimony of both parties at the fact-finding hearing, we find no basis to disturb the court’s findings on credibility. Nor do we find a basis to disturb its conclusions that respondent’s treatment of petitioner, his mother, who is particularly vulnerable because of her mental illness, and his extended pattern of menacing, harassment, attempted assault and disorderly conduct toward her, constitute aggravating circumstances (Family Ct Act § 827 [a] [vii]; § 842; *Matter of Kristine Z. v Anthony C.,*21 AD3d 1319 [2005], *lv dismissed*6 *308NY3d 772 [2006]; *Matter of Wright v Wright, 4*AD3d 683 [2004]).

The order of protection is valid notwithstanding that a dispositional hearing was not conducted. Respondent never demanded a dispositional hearing, and provides no indication of what evidence he would have offered. There is no explicit statutory mandate that a dispositional hearing be conducted in proceedings under Family Court Act article 8. Since the only dispositional order in issue was an order of protection, and since the evidence at the fact-finding hearing amply supported the issuance of that order and the duration of its term, no purpose would have been served by conducting a dispositional hearing *(Matter of Annie C. v Marcellus W.,*278 AD2d 177 [2000]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Marlow and Nardelli, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                         398,639
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  693,743
<ALLOWANCES>                                    20,000
<INVENTORY>                                    472,301
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,566,695
<PP&E>                                       5,106,203
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,962,745
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,074,385
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        8,051,616
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        22,586
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,849,817
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,074,385
<SALES>                                      1,804,508
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,824,900
<CGS>                                        1,013,846
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,186,567
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                20,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             650,603
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,007,059)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,007,859)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,007,859)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (.046)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
IV

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 447

Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to require that a

Chaplain be elected by the House after having been nominated by the

Speaker, the Majority Leader, and the Minority Leader, acting jointly.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 23, 2000

Mr. DOOLEY of California (for himself and Mr. POMEROY) submitted the

following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Rules

RESOLUTION

Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to

require that a Chaplain be elected by the House after

having been nominated by the Speaker, the Majority

Leader, and the Minority Leader, acting jointly.

1 Resolved, That (a) clause 1 of rule II of the Rules

2 of the House of Representatives is amended—

3 (1) in the first sentence, by inserting ‘‘and’’

4 after ‘‘Officer,’’ and by striking ‘‘, and a Chaplain’’;

5 and

6 (2) by inserting after the first sentence the fol7 lowing new sentence: ‘‘At the same time and for the

8 same term, there shall be elected a Chaplain who
2

•HRES 447 IH

1 shall have been nominated by the Speaker, the Ma2 jority Leader, and the Minority Leader, acting joint3 ly.’’.

4 (b) The amendments made by this resolution shall

5 take effect immediately before noon on January 3, 2001.

Æ
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 QuadTech International, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended April 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John Meier, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and 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.  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to QuadTech International, Inc. and will be retained by QuadTech International,, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.  June 13, 2008

John Meier

John Meier
President and Chief Executive Officer
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Graham Packaging Holdings Company on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Mark S. Burgess, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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 Graham Packaging Holdings Company. |
|--------|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

Date:  May 15, 2007

 

 

| By:    | /s/ Mark S. Burgess     |
|--------|-------------------------|
|   | Mark S. Burgess         |
|   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

 

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.

 

 

1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS OF TOWNE SERVICES INC FROM FORM 10-Q FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE
30, 1999 (FOR SEC USE ONLY) AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                      32,333,082
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                7,619,446
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (428,792)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            40,778,000
<PP&E>                                       9,199,692
<DEPRECIATION>                              (2,092,008)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              63,531,131
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        7,857,576
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  1,880,000
<COMMON>                                    82,042,453
<OTHER-SE>                                 (29,068,215)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                63,531,131
<SALES>                                     15,427,428
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            15,427,428
<CGS>                                        3,115,856
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               20,935,152
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (112,741)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (5,394,983)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (354,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (5,040,983)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (5,040,983)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (.23)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.23)


</TABLE>
#### § 248.7 Liability for condition and use of structures.

Any private structures including drying sheds, tents, tepees, or fishing platforms erected, placed, or maintained on the sites are the sole responsibility of their owners, and all use of such structures shall be at the user's or owner's sole responsibility and risk. Neither the United States nor any officer or employee thereof warrants, makes any representation, or is responsible for the safety or condition of any such structure.

[34 FR 2248, Feb. 15, 1969. Redesignated at 47 FR 13327, Mar. 30, 1982]
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________

No. 02-21-00230-CV

___________________________

On Appeal from County Court at Law No. 1

Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2021-003411-1

Before Sudderth, C.J.; Kerr and Birdwell, JJ.

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

GRACE BROWN, Appellant

V.

3145 BLUE CRESCENT FW, LLC, Appellee
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT

Appellant’s brief was due on December 17, 2021. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.6. On 

December 28, 2021, we notified Appellant that her brief had not been filed and that 

her failure to file a brief violated Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.6. We warned

that we could dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless, within ten days, 

Appellant filed a brief with the court along with an accompanying motion reasonably 

explaining the brief’s untimeliness and why an extension was necessary. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 10.5(b), 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b). More than ten days have passed, but we have not

received a response.

Because Appellant has failed to file a brief as the Rules of Appellate Procedure

require, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1), 

42.3(b), (c), 43.2(f).

Per Curiam

Delivered: January 27, 2022
### §8670. Contracts for nuclear ships: sales of naval shipyard articles and services to private shipyards

The conditions set forth in section 2208(j)(1)(B) of this title and subsections (a)(1) and (c)(1)(A) of section 2563 of this title shall not apply to a sale by a naval shipyard of articles or services to a private shipyard that is made at the request of the private shipyard in order to facilitate the private shipyard's fulfillment of a Department of Defense contract with respect to a nuclear ship. This section does not authorize a naval shipyard to construct a nuclear ship for the private shipyard, to perform a majority of the work called for in a contract with a private entity, or to provide articles or services not requested by the private shipyard.

(Added Pub. L. 106–65, div. A, title X, §1016(a), Oct. 5, 1999, 113 Stat. 744, §7300; amended Pub. L. 106–398, §1 [[div. A], title X, §1033(c)(3)], Oct. 30, 2000, 114 Stat. 1654, 1654A–261; renumbered §8670, Pub. L. 115–232, div. A, title VIII, §807(d)(2), Aug. 13, 2018, 132 Stat. 1836.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2018—Pub. L. 115–232 renumbered section 7300 of this title as this section.

2000—Pub. L. 106–398 substituted "section 2563" for "section 2553".

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 2018 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 115–232 effective Feb. 1, 2019, with provision for the coordination of amendments and special rule for certain redesignations, see section 800 of Pub. L. 115–232, set out as a note preceding section 3001 of this title.
# C_2006154EN.01001501.xml

| 1.7.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 154/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.7.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 154/15

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 2 May 2006 — O2 (Germany) v Commission

(Case T-328/03) (1)

1

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Notified agreement - Third generation of mobile telecommunications - Negative clearance - Individual exemption - Analysis of the situation in the absence of an agreement - Impact of the agreement on competition)

(2006/C 154/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: O2 (Germany) GmbH & Co. OHG, (Munich, Germany) (represented by: N. Green QC, K. Bacon, Barrister, and by B. Amory and F. Marchini Camia, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented initially by: R. Wainwright, S. Rating and P. Oliver, and subsequently by É. Gippini Fournier, P. Hellström and K. Mojzesowicz, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Application for annulment of Articles 2 and 3(a) of Commission Decision 2004/207/EC of 16 July 2003 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.369: T-Mobile Deutschland/O2 Germany: Network Sharing Rahmenvertrag) (OJ 2004 L 75, p. 32)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Articles 2 and 3(a) of Commission Decision 2004/207/EC of 16 July 2003 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.369: T-Mobile Deutschland/O2 Germany: Network Sharing Rahmenvertrag) in so far as they imply that the clauses referred to in those articles fall within the scope of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Articles 2 and 3(a) of Commission Decision 2004/207/EC of 16 July 2003 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.369: T-Mobile Deutschland/O2 Germany: Network Sharing Rahmenvertrag) in so far as they imply that the clauses referred to in those articles fall within the scope of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement;

| 2. | Orders the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 275, 15.11.2003.

1

---
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

U.S. Indo-Pacific CommandUSINDOPACOM

U.S. Indo-Pacific Command

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  Leadership    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Chief of Staff         
  -  Senior Enlisted Leader 
-  About USINDOPACOM    -  History         
  -  USPACOM Area of Responsibility         
  -  USPACOM Previous Commanders         
  -  Women, Peace and Security 
-  Organization    -  Organization Chart 
-  Media    -  News      -  Spotlight 
  -  Photos         
  -  Speeches / Testimony         
  -  Freedom of Information Act      -  FOIA - Reading Room         
    -  Submit FOIA Request         
    -  Request Status         
    -  FOIA FAQS 
-  Resources    -  Travel Requirements         
  -  Useful Theater Information         
  -  FAQ         
  -  Useful Links 
-  Newcomers		 
-  Contact    -  Directory         
  -  Media Inquiries         
  -  Industry Engagements 
-  JTF - Red Hill		 
-  JTF-Micronesia		 

Home : Media : News : News Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# Pacific Partnership 2016 Completes First Live SAR Field Training Exercise in Vietnam 

By Pacific Partnership 2016 Public Affairs

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

More Articles/News