alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2007095EN.01003202.xml

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 95/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/32

---

Action brought on 28 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands

(Case C-123/07)

(2007/C 95/61)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: B. Stromsky and H. van Vliet, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | declare that, by failing to bring into force all of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/27/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 amending Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, or in any event by not informing the Commission of those provisions, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by failing to bring into force all of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/27/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 amending Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, or in any event by not informing the Commission of those provisions, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

1

| — | order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period within which the directive had to be transposed in national law expired on 30 October 2005.

---

(1)  OJ 2004 L 136, p. 34.

1

---
§ 37.23 Reissued REAL ID driver's licenses and identification cards. ( a ) *State procedure.* States must establish an effective procedure to confirm or verify an applicant's identity each time a REAL ID driver's license or identification card is reissued, to ensure that the individual receiving the reissued REAL ID driver's license or identification card is the same individual to whom the driver's license or identification card was originally issued.
( b ) *Remote/Non-in-person reissuance.* Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section a State may conduct a non-in-person (remote) reissuance if State procedures permit the reissuance to be conducted remotely. Except for the reissuance of duplicate driver's licenses and identification cards as defined in this rule, the State must reverify pursuant to § 37.13, the applicant's SSN and lawful status prior to reissuing the driver's license or identification card.
( c ) *In-person reissuance.* The State may not remotely reissue a driver's license or identification card where there has been a material change in any personally identifiable information since prior issuance. All material changes must be established through an applicant's presentation of an original source document as provided in this subpart, and must be verified as specified in § 37.13.
Summary of Compensation Arrangements for Non-Employee Directors



 EXHIBIT 10.1 
 Rentrak Corporation 
 Summary of Compensation Arrangements for Non-Employee Directors

 Each non-employee director of Rentrak Corporation (“Rentrak”) receives an annual retainer of $30,000. In addition, the
chair of the Compensation Committee receives a $3,000 annual retainer, the chair of the Audit Committee receives a $5,000 annual retainer, and each other non-employee director who serves on the Audit Committee receives a $2,500 annual
retainer. Non-employee directors are also paid $1,200 for each board or committee meeting they attend in person or by telephone conference call. Rentrak also reimburses directors for their travel expenses for each meeting attended in
person. 
 In accordance with the provisions of Rentrak’s 2005 Stock Incentive Plan approved by the shareholders at the 2005 annual
meeting, the Board of Directors approved the award of 9,000 deferred stock units (“DSUs”) to each non-employee director on June 15, 2006. The DSUs represent the right to receive an equal number of shares of Rentrak’s Common
Stock pursuant to the terms and conditions of the 2005 Stock Incentive Plan on a deferred basis in compliance with the terms of Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code, as amended. The awards of DSUs will vest in full on June 15,
2007, provided that the recipient continues to be a non-employee director on that date, and provided further that the DSUs will fully vest upon termination of the recipient’s service on the Board due to death or disability or a change in
control of Rentrak before that date. The awards of DSUs will be payable following the recipient’s ceasing to be a director of Rentrak. 
 The Board also approved annual grants of 9,000 DSUs to each non-employee director each April 1 (beginning in 2007) on terms comparable to those described above.
Motion Granted; Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed January

3 , 201 3

.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 12

- 00627

- CV

IN THE ESTATE OF LIL LIE A. BURROUGHS, Deceased

On Appeal from Probate Court No

. 4 Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 396,576

- 401

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

Appellee , Gary W. Burroughs, has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal on the grounds appellant, Robert Burroughs
, lacks standing. Robert Burroughs filed the notice of appeal in his capacity as the independent executor of the Estate of Lillie A. Burroughs, Deceased, but was subsequently removed as independent

executor . Robert Burroughs did not file an amended notice of appeal in his individual capacity. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.1(g).2

On November 16, 2012, notification was transmitted to all parties of the court’s intention to dismiss the appeal unless, on or before December 3, 2012, a response was filed showing merit orious grounds for continuing the appeal. Appellant has not filed a response that demonstrates grounds to continue the appeal. Accordingly, appellee’s motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is
ordered dismissed.
Appellant’s pending motion to exten d time to file his brief is denied as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Frost, Christopher, and Jamison.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

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

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          31,515
<SECURITIES>                                    30,793
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,428
<ALLOWANCES>                                       333
<INVENTORY>                                        114
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                63,836
<PP&E>                                           6,157
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,316
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  90,828
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,303
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           205
<OTHER-SE>                                      82,320
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    90,828
<SALES>                                         27,521
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                27,521
<CGS>                                           22,636
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   22,636
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                18,048
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   537
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (12,022)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (12,022)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (12,022)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.60)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.60)


</TABLE>
**Exhibit13.2**

** **

**CERTIFICATION**

** **

**Pursuantto section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002(subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18,United States Code)**

** **

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and(b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), theundersigned officer of Millicom International Cellular, S.A., a companyincorporated under the laws of the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg (the *“Company”*), hereby certifies, to suchofficer’s knowledge, that:

 

The Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended *December 31, 2005* (the *“Report”*)of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 
| Date:  | May 1, 2006 | By:    | /s/ DAVID SACH                                    |   |
|--------|------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |             |   | Name:  David  Sach                           |
|   |             |   | Title:    Chief  Financial Officer |

 

----
### §5110. Background checks of loan originators

#### (a) Access to records

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in providing identification and processing functions, the Attorney General shall provide access to all criminal history information to the appropriate State officials responsible for regulating State-licensed loan originators and other financial service providers to the extent criminal history background checks are required under the laws of the State for the licensing of such loan originators or other financial service providers.

#### (b) Agent

For the purposes of this section and in order to reduce the points of contact which the Federal Bureau of Investigation may have to maintain for purposes of subsection (a), the Conference of State Bank Supervisors or a wholly owned subsidiary may be used as a channeling agent of the States for requesting and distributing information between the Department of Justice and the appropriate State agencies .

(Pub. L. 110–289, div. A, title V, §1511, July 30, 2008, 122 Stat. 2819; Pub. L. 114–94, div. G, title LXXXVIII, §88002, Dec. 4, 2015, 129 Stat. 1799.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2015—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 114–94 inserted "and other financial service providers" after "State-licensed loan originators" and "or other financial service providers" before period at end.
Exhibit 10.15


 


FOURTH AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT


 


This is the fourth amendment to
the Research Collaboration and License Agreement between MERCK & CO.,
INC., a corporation organized and existing under the laws of New Jersey (“MERCK”)
and ARRIS PHARMACEUTICAL CORPORATION, a corporation organized and existing
under the laws of Delaware, now known as Axys Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“AXYS”)
made as of November 6, 1996 (the “Agreement”).  The purpose of this fourth amendment is to [***].


 


1.     In accordance with the provisions of Section 2.8 and Section 5.2(d) of
the Agreement and subject to MERCK’s right to terminate the Research Program
and the Agreement in accordance with Section 8.2, the parties agree that [***]
FTE’s will be required during the period [***] payable at an annual rate
of [***] per FTE.


 


2.     Capitalized terms used and not otherwise defined herein shall
have the respective meanings set forth in the Agreement.  The Agreement, together with the first
amendment dated November 18, 1999, and this fourth amendment contain the
entire understanding of the parties with respect to their subject matter.  All express or implied agreements and
understandings, either oral or written, heretofore made are expressly merged in
and made a part of the Agreement as amended by the first, second, third and
fourth amendments.  All other terms and
conditions of the Agreement, as amended, continue in full force and effect.  The Agreement and its amendments may be
amended, or any term thereof modified, only by a written instrument duly
executed by both parties hereto.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties
have entered into this Amendment as of March 3, 2000.


 


	
  MERCK & CO., INC.

  	
   

  	
  AXYS PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  By:

  	
  /s/ Mervyn Turner

  	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/ Michael Venuti 3/15/00

  
					



 


 






[***] indicates material that has been omitted pursuant to a request
for confidential treatment. The omitted material has been filed separately with
the Securities and Exchange Commission.


 


1
# C_2010161EN.01003201.xml

| 19.6.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/32

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio lodged on 2 April 2010 — Andrea Sacripanti v Ministero dell’Interno

(Case C-171/10)

(2010/C 161/45)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Andrea Sacripanti

Defendant: Ministero dell’Interno

Question referred

Is a national system under national legislation (introduced as from the Bersani Decree, Decree-Law No 223 of 4 July 2006, converted into Law No 248 of 4 August 2006) compatible with Articles 43 and 49 of the EC Treaty, when it, inter alia:

| (a) | tends generally to protect holders of licences issued at an earlier period following a tendering procedure that unlawfully excluded some operators; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

tends generally to protect holders of licences issued at an earlier period following a tendering procedure that unlawfully excluded some operators;

| (b) | in fact ensures the maintenance of acquired commercial positions (by, for example, prohibiting new licensees from locating their kiosks within a specified distance of those already in existence); |
| --- | --- |

(b)

in fact ensures the maintenance of acquired commercial positions (by, for example, prohibiting new licensees from locating their kiosks within a specified distance of those already in existence);

| (c) | provides for cases in which the licence may lapse when the licensee directly or indirectly carries on cross- border gaming activities analogous to those under the licence? |
| --- | --- |

(c)

provides for cases in which the licence may lapse when the licensee directly or indirectly carries on cross- border gaming activities analogous to those under the licence?

---
§ 104.4 Products for research and evaluation. ( a ) An application for a U.S. Veterinary Biological Product Permit to import a biological product for research and evaluation shall be accompanied by a brief description of such product, methods of propagating antigens including composition of medium, species of animals or cell cultures involved, degree of inactivation or attenuation, recommendations for use, and the proposed plan of evaluation. The applicant shall also provide any information the Administrator may require in order to assess the product's impact on the environment.
( b ) ( 1 ) A permit to import a biological product for research and evaluation shall not be issued unless the scientific capabilities of the investigator are determined to be adequate to safeguard domestic animals and protect public health, interest, or safety from any deleterious effects which might result from use of such product. Special restrictions or tests may be specified as part of the permit when they are deemed necessary or advisable by the Administrator.
( 2 ) No person shall ship a product imported under this section for research and evaluation anywhere in or from the United States unless authorized by the Administrator in accordance with the provisions of § 103.3 of this subchapter.
( c ) A biological product shall not be imported for Research and Evaluation which is not packaged and labeled in accordance with § 112.9 of this subchapter.
( d ) When a licensed product has been exported from the United States, a permit may be issued to the producer for a small quantity of such product for in vitro Research and Evaluation tests: *Provided,* That, the importation of such product will not endanger the livestock or poultry of this country.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0579-0013) [38 FR 32916, Nov. 29, 1973, as amended at 48 FR 57473, Dec. 30, 1983; 52 FR 30131, Aug. 13, 1987; 56 FR 66783, Dec. 26, 1991]
# C_2007069EN.01001502.xml

| 24.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/15

---

Action brought on 14 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-80/07)

(2007/C 69/36)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Patakia and B. Stromsky)

Applicant:

Defendant: Hellenic Republic

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | declare that, by not adopting, or in any event by not notifying to the Commission, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2005/28/EC (1) of 8 April 2005 laying down principles and detailed guidelines for good clinical practice as regards investigational medicinal products for human use, as well as the requirements for authorisation of the manufacturing or importation of such products, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by not adopting, or in any event by not notifying to the Commission, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2005/28/EC (1) of 8 April 2005 laying down principles and detailed guidelines for good clinical practice as regards investigational medicinal products for human use, as well as the requirements for authorisation of the manufacturing or importation of such products, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

1

| — | order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The time-limit for transposition of Directive 2005/28 into domestic law expired on 29 November 2006.

---

(1)  OJ L 91, 9.4.2005, p. 13.

1

---
Limited Power of Attorney - Securities Law Compliance


The undersigned, as an officer or director of Solectron Corporation,
(the "Corporation"), hereby constitutes and appoints Philip Fok,
Michael Grady, or Victoria Miranda the undersigned's true and lawful
attorney-in-fact and agent to complete and execute such Forms 3, 4
and 5 and other forms as such attorney-in-fact shall, in his or her
discretion, determine to be required or advisable pursuant to Section
16 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (as amended) and the
rules and regulations promulgated thereunder, or any successor laws and
regulations, as a consequence of the undersigned's ownership,
acquisition or disposition of securities of the Corporation, and to
do all acts necessary in order to file such forms with the Securities
and Exchange Commission, any securities exchange or national
association, the Corporation and such other person or agency as the
attorney-in-fact shall deem appropriate. The undersigned hereby
ratifies and confirms all that said attorney-in-fact and agent shall
do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.


This Limited Power of Attorney is executed at San Jose, CA, as of the
date set forth below.



				Signature:	S/ Kevin Burns

				Type or Print Name:	Kevin Burns

				Dated: 	May 4, 2003






Witness:

Signature:	S/ Janet Hopper


Type or Print Name:	Janet Hopper


Dated: May 4, 2003
### §2310. Relief of retired enlisted member promoted while on active duty

Any enlisted member on the retired list recalled to active duty who during such active duty is advanced to a higher grade or rating under a permanent or temporary appointment or promotion shall, upon relief from active duty be advanced on the retired list to the highest grade or rating held while on active duty. In case the appointment or promotion was temporary the advancement on the retired list shall be made only to such grade or rating in which the member served satisfactorily on active duty.

(Aug. 4, 1949, ch. 393, 63 Stat. 522, §361; Aug. 3, 1950, ch. 536, §20, 64 Stat. 407; Pub. L. 98–557, §15(a)(3)(A), (G), (4)(C)(i), Oct. 30, 1984, 98 Stat. 2865; renumbered §2310, Pub. L. 115–282, title I, §113(b), Dec. 4, 2018, 132 Stat. 4221.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

Derived from title 34, U.S.C., 1946 ed., §§3501(a) and (b), 350j(b) (July 24, 1941, ch. 320, §10, 55 Stat. 605; Feb. 21, 1946, ch. 34, §8(a), 60 Stat. 28).

Said sections have application to officers only, but in accord with the general plan to make as many provisions as possible applicable both to officers and men, it seems highly desirable to provide similarly for enlisted men—a fortiori because there are cases in the Coast Guard in which enlisted men are suffering inequitably because there is no provision for advancing men on the retired list after they have been advanced in rating while serving on active duty after recall from the retired list. 81st Congress, House Report No. 557.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2018—Pub. L. 115–282 renumbered section 361 of this title as this section.

1984—Pub. L. 98–557 in section catchline substituted "enlisted member" for "man", and in two places in text substituted "member" for "man".

1950—Act Aug. 3, 1950, struck out all references to pay.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18
- 1972

In re: FRANK TERALD HOGUE, II , Petitioner

.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus . ( 1:15

- cr - 00037

- WO

- 2; 1:16

- cv - 01079

- WO

- LPA )

Submitted : Dec ember 2 0 , 2018 Decided: December 26, 2018

Before D IAZ and RICHARDSON , Circuit Judges , and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

. Frank Terald Hogue, II, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Frank Terald Hogue, II , petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and other related motions . He seeks an order from this court dir ecting the district court to act. Our review of the district court’s docket reveals that the district court denied relief on Hogue’s motion s on October 17, 2018. Accordingly, because the district court has recently decided Hogue ’s case, we deny the manda mus petition as moot. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
### §5222. Coordination with foreign authorities and central banks

The Secretary shall coordinate, as appropriate, with foreign financial authorities and central banks to work toward the establishment of similar programs by such authorities and central banks. To the extent that such foreign financial authorities or banks hold troubled assets as a result of extending financing to financial institutions that have failed or defaulted on such financing, such troubled assets qualify for purchase under section 5211 of this title.

(Pub. L. 110–343, div. A, title I, §112, Oct. 3, 2008, 122 Stat. 3777.)