alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2012366EN.01001602.xml

| 24.11.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 366/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.11.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 366/16

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 4 October 2012 — Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE v European Commission

(Case C-629/11 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Public contract awarded by the Commission - Rejection of the tender - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based - Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 - Article 100(2) - Time-limit for replying to a request for information - Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 - Article 149(2))

2012/C 366/27

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, dikigoros)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: D. Calciu and S. Delaude, Agents, and P. Wytinck, advocaat)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 20 September 2011 in Case T-298/09 Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission dismissing an application first, for annulment of the Commission decision of 12 May 2009 rejecting the tender submitted by the applicant in response to call for tenders EAC/01/2008 for external service provision for educational programmes (ESP-ISEP) (OJ 2008/S 158-212752) and of the decision to award the contract to another tenderer and, second, for damages — Article 93(1)(f) of the Financial Regulation — Period of validity of tenders — Non-contractual liability

Evropaïki Dynamiki

Commission

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 49, 18.2.2012.

1

---
### §3114. Regional and structural employment policies and programs

#### (a) Recommendation of legislation

To the extent deemed appropriate by the President in fulfillment of the purposes of section 3111 of this title, the President shall recommend legislation to the Congress if necessary, regional and structural employment policies and programs.

#### (b) Private sector production and employment; effect of Federal policies

In formulating the regional components of any such programs, the President shall encourage to the extent the President deems necessary, new private sector production and employment to locate within depressed localities and regions with substantial unemployment and to aid in stabilizing their economic base. To the extent feasible, such policies and programs shall foster the establishment and growth of smaller businesses in such localities and regions. Any regional employment proposal of the President shall also include an analysis of the extent to which Federal tax, expenditure (including procurement of goods and services), defense, transportation, energy, natural resources and employment policies have influenced the movement of people, jobs, and small and larger business and industries from chronic high unemployment regions and areas, and proposals designed to correct Federal policies that have an adverse economic impact upon such regions and areas.

(Pub. L. 95–523, title II, §204, Oct. 27, 1978, 92 Stat. 1901.)
§ 1317.520 Job classification and structure. A recipient shall not: ( a ) Classify a job as being for males or for females;
( b ) Maintain or establish separate lines of progression, seniority lists, career ladders, or tenure systems based on sex; or
( c ) Maintain or establish separate lines of progression, seniority systems, career ladders, or tenure systems for similar jobs, position descriptions, or job requirements that classify persons on the basis of sex, unless sex is a bona fide occupational qualification for the positions in question as set forth in § 1317.550.
November 30, 2015

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

THE CITY OF HOUSTON, Appellant

NO. 14-14-00818-CV V.

KELLEY STREET ASSOCIATES, LLC, Appellee

________________________________

This cause, an appeal from the judgment in favor of appellee, Kelley Street 

Associates, LLC, signed October 3, 2014, was heard on the transcript of the record. 

We have inspected the record and find error. We therefore order the judgment of 

the court below REVERSED and RENDER judgment dismissing Kelley Street 

Associates, LLC’s suit against the City of Houston for want of subject matter 

jurisdiction.

We further order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by 

appellee, Kelley Street Associates, LLC.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-7145

BILLY DEAN CHAFFINS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

SOUTHWEST VIRGINIA REGIONAL JAIL-ABINGDON,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior 

District Judge. (7:11-cv-00312-JCT)

Submitted: February 9, 2012 Decided: February 14, 2012

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Billy Dean Chaffins, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Billy Dean Chaffins appeals the district court’s order 

denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We 

have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district 

court. Chaffins v. Southwest Virginia Regional Jail, No. 7:11-

cv-00312-JCT (W.D. Va. Aug. 17, 2011). Chaffins’ request for 

appointment of counsel is denied. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before the court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
§ 72.18 Movement interstate; specification by the Deputy Administrator, Veterinary Services of treatment required when dipping facilities unavailable. ( a ) *Tick-infested cattle.* Cattle of the free area which are tick-infested may be moved interstate for any purpose after they have been treated in the same manner as cattle under § 72.6: *Provided, however,* That when dipping equipment is not available at the place where the cattle are, said treatment shall be given at a place and in the manner specified by the Administrator, APHIS.
( b ) *Tick-exposed cattle.* Cattle of the free area which have been exposed to tick infestation may be moved interstate for any purpose after they have been treated in the same manner as cattle under § 72.7: *Provided, however,* That when dipping equipment is not available at the place where the cattle are, said treatment shall be given at a place and in the manner specified by the Administrator, APHIS.
( c ) *Cattle moved contrary to regulations.* Cattle which have been moved from the quarantined area to the free area without first having been treated in the manner provided in either § 72.6 or § 72.7 or inspected in the manner provided in § 72.8 shall not be shipped or moved interstate until they have been treated in the same manner as cattle under § 72.6: *Provided, however,* That when dipping equipment is not available at the place where the cattle are, said treatment shall be given at a place and in the manner specified by the Administrator, APHIS.
[28 FR 5940, June 13, 1963, as amended at 50 FR 430, Jan. 4, 1985; 56 FR 51974, Oct. 17, 1991]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 21
- 0010 CITY OF MISSOULA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. THERESE ANNE ELKINTON,

Defendant and Appellant .

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including September 20 , 2021 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

August 16 2021

08/16/2021

Case Number: DA 21-0010
**Exhibit 13.1**

 

**STATEMENT OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF**

**ARCADIS N.V.**

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**§ 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with theannual report of ARCADIS N.V. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the periodended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission (the “Report”), I, Harrie L.J. Noy, Chairman of the Executive Boardof the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my knowledge:

 

(1)           The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and

 

(2)           The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date: June 13, 2005 | By:                              | /s/ Harrie L.J. Noy |   |
|--------------------------|----------------------------------|---------------------|--------|
|                     | Harrie L.J. Noy                  |
|                     | Chairman of the Executive  Board |
|                     | (Principal Executive  Officer)   |

 

----
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

                      SUBSIDIARIES OF EXECUTIVE RISK INC.


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                               CHARTERING              PERCENT
NAME OF SUBSIDIARY                            JURISDICTION              OWNED
------------------                            ------------             -------
<S>                                          <C>                      <C>

 Executive Risk Inc. Subsidiaries
 --------------------------------

Executive Risk Management Associates*         Connecticut                70%
 (underwriting and claims agency)

Executive Risk Capital Trust                  Delaware                  100%

Executive Re Inc.                             Delaware                  100%
 (middle-level holding company)

  Executive Re Inc. Subsidiaries
  ------------------------------
  - Executive Risk Management Associates*     Connecticut                30%

  - Executive Risk                            Netherlands               100%
     International Holdings BV
       (mid-level holding co.)

       Executive Risk I.H. BV subsidiary
       ---------------------------------

       - Executive Risk N.V.                  Netherlands               100%
         (Netherlands insurer)

  - Executive Risk (Bermuda) Ltd.             Bermuda                   100%
         (Bermuda insurer)

  - Sullivan Kelly Inc.                       California                100%
     (underwriting manager)

       Sullivan Kelly Inc. subsidiary   
       ------------------------------   

       - Sullivan Kelly of Arizona, Inc.      Arizona                   100%

  - Executive Risk Indemnity Inc.             Delaware                  100%
      (admitted insurance company)

       Executive Risk Indemnity Inc. subsidiaries
       ------------------------------------------

       - Executive Risk Specialty             Connecticut               100%
         Insurance Company
         (surplus lines company)

</TABLE>
<PAGE>   2
     -Quadrant Indemnity Company       Connecticut      100%
     (admitted insurance company)

     -Talcott Services Corporation     Connecticut      100%

  -Executive Risk Limited              United Kingdom   100%

---------------------------------------
  *Connecticut general partnership.


ALL SUBSIDIARIES HAVE A PRINCIPAL U.S. MAILING ADDRESS OF:

82 HOPMEADOW STREET
SIMSBURY, CONNECTICUT 06070
#### Toms *v.*Neely.

March 19, 1910.

Habeas corpus. Before Judge Bell. Fulcon superior court.

September 1C, 1909.

*Hines & Jordan,*for plaintiff.

*Edgar A.*Neely, for defendant.

Beck, J.

It not appearing, under the evidence in the case, that the court below abused his discretion in awarding the custody of -the minor, the rightful custody of whom was in controversy, to the respondent in* the habeas-corpus proceedings, the judgment will not be disturbed.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur, except Fish, G. J., absent.*
Exhibit 13.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Bruno Lafont, Chief Executive Officer of Lafarge, a société anonyme organized under French law, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of Lafarge on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, to my knowledge, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and the information contained in such Annual Report on Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Lafarge as of the dates and for the periods set forth therein.:

|Date:
        March 23, 2007 |                                      
|---------------------------- | -------------------------------------
|                             | /s/
         Bruno Lafont            
|                             | Bruno
        Lafont                 
|                             | Group
        Chief Executive Officer



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to Lafarge and will be retained by Lafarge and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
3

GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS

AGL- Above Ground Level

AOI- Area of Interest

ATC- Air Traffic Control

ATO- Air Traffic Organization

AV- Aerial Vehicle

C.F.R.- Code of Federal Regulations

COA- Certificate of Authorization

FAA- Federal Aviation Administration

FAR-Federal Aviation Regulation

GCS- Ground Control Station

GPS- Global Positioning System

LOL- Loss of Link

NAS-National Airspace System

NOTAM- Notice to Airman

PIC- Pilot In Command

SOP- Standard Operating Procedures

UA- Unmanned Aircraft

UAS- Unmanned Aircraft System

VFR- Visual Flight Rules

VLOS- Visual Line of Site

VMC- Visual Meteorological Conditions

VO- Visual Observer

VTOL- Vertical Takeoff and Landing

U.S. Department of Transportation 

West Building Ground Floor, Room w12-140

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590
<PAGE>

                                                                    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


The undersigned, Patricia A. Costante, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of
The MIIX Group, Incorporated (the "Company"), has executed this certification in
connection with the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the
Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2004
(the "Report").

The undersigned hereby certifies that to the best of her knowledge:

          (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 the Company.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
15th day of November, 2004.


                                   /s/ Patricia A. Costante
                                   --------------------------------------------
                                   Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
                                   November 15, 2004


                                                                              27
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 48 (Friday, March 11, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 13437]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-5604]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL FOUNDATION FOR THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES


National Endowment for the Arts; National Council on the Arts 
172nd Meeting; Amendment Notice

    Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act 
(Pub. L. 92-463), as amended, this notice is to announce changes to the 
previously announced meeting of the National Council on the Arts.
    The session on Thursday, March 24th, previously announced for 5 
p.m. to 5:30 p.m., will instead be held from 4:45 p.m. to 5:15 p.m. 
(ending time is approximate). The session on Friday, March 25th, will 
be held from 9 a.m. to 11 a.m.
    Any interested persons may attend, as observers, Council 
discussions and reviews that are open to the public. If you need 
special accommodations due to a disability, please contact the Office 
of AccessAbility, National Endowment for the Arts, 1100 Pennsylvania 
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20506, 202/682-5532, TTY-TDD 202/682-5429, 
at least seven (7) days prior to the meeting.
    Further information with reference to this meeting can be obtained 
from the Office of Communications, National Endowment for the Arts, 
Washington, DC 20506, at 202/682-5570.

    Dated: March 8, 2011.
Kathy Plowitz-Worden,
Panel Coordinator, Office of Guidelines and Panel Operations.
[FR Doc. 2011-5604 Filed 3-10-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7537-01-P
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND 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, Richard A. Karp, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly
Report of Catapult Communications Corporation on Form 10-Q for the fiscal
quarter ended March 31, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information
contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material
respects the financial condition and results of operations of Catapult
Communications Corporation.

                                            By: /s/ RICHARD A. KARP
                                                -------------------
                                            Name:  Richard A. Karp
                                            Title: Chief Executive Officer

I, Chris Stephenson, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly
Report of Catapult Communications Corporation on Form 10-Q for the fiscal
quarter ended March 31, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information
contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material
respects the financial condition and results of operations of Catapult
Communications Corporation.

                                            By: /s/ CHRISTOPHER A. STEPHENSON
                                                -----------------------------
                                            Name:  Christopher A. Stephenson
                                            Title: Chief Financial Officer
# C_2010288EN.01006001.xml

| 23.10.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 288/60 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.10.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 288/60

---

Appeal brought on 1 September 2010 by Luigi Marcuccio against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal made on 22 June 2010 in Case F-78/09, Marcuccio v Commission

(Case T-366/10 P)

()

(2010/C 288/109)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by G. Cipressa, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | in any event, set aside in its entirety and without exception the order under appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

in any event, set aside in its entirety and without exception the order under appeal;

| — | declare that the action at first instance, in relation to which the order under appeal was made, was admissible in its entirety and without exception; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the action at first instance, in relation to which the order under appeal was made, was admissible in its entirety and without exception;

| — | uphold in its entirety and without any exception whatsoever the application lodged at first instance by the appellant; |
| --- | --- |

—

uphold in its entirety and without any exception whatsoever the application lodged at first instance by the appellant;

| — | order the Commission to reimburse the appellant in respect of all costs, disbursements and fees incurred by him in relation both to the proceedings at first instance and to the present appeal proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to reimburse the appellant in respect of all costs, disbursements and fees incurred by him in relation both to the proceedings at first instance and to the present appeal proceedings;

| — | in the alternative, refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal, sitting in a different formation, for a fresh decision. |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal, sitting in a different formation, for a fresh decision.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present appeal has been brought against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) of 22 June 2010. That order dismissed as manifestly inadmissible an action seeking compensation for the damage sustained by the appellant because of the Commission’s refusal to reimburse him in respect of the costs incurred in the proceedings in Case T-18/04 Marcuccio v Commission.

In support of his claims, the appellant alleges the erroneous and unreasonable interpretation of the concept of ‘request’ for the purposes of Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations; total failure to state reasons; distortion and misrepresentation of the facts; and misinterpretation of the case-law on the recovery of costs which a party has been ordered to pay by the Court.

The appellant also alleges breach of the principle of audi alteram partem and of the rights of the defence and asserts that the CST failed to rule on a number of his claims.

---