alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2013046EN.01000602.xml

| 16.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 46/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 46/6

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 December 2012 — European Commission v Planet AE

(Case C-314/11 P) (1)

1

(Appeals - Protection of the financial interests of the European Union - Identification of the level of risk associated with an entity - Early warning system - OLAF investigation - Decisions - Requests for activation of W1a and W1b warnings - Reviewable measures - Admissibility)

2013/C 46/11

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou and F. Dintilhac, acting as Agents)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Planet AE (represented by: V. Christianos, dikigoros)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 April 2011 in Case T-320/09 Planet AE v Commission dismissing the plea of inadmissibility raised by the European Commission in an action for the annulment of Commission decisions, taken following investigation by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), to activate, in the early warning system (EWS), a ‘W1a’ registration and subsequently a ‘W1b’ registration, identifying the level of risk associated with the applicant as a party awarded a public service contract concerning a project for institutional and sectoral modernisation in Syria, funded under the MEDA programme (OJ 2005 S 203-199730).

Planet AE

Commission

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

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

2.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 238, 13.8.2011.

1

---
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  Document Search 
-  SCORE 

# SCORE

## About this document and download

This is a funding opportunity for a current recipient of an SBA SCORE award. In order to be eligible, you must be a current recipient of SBA funding to SCORE. For-profit businesses are not eligible for this award. 

  Download  .pdf

**Related Programs**    Related programs:
_______________________________________ __ 

### Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan



## October 27, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice



## 136447 Michael F. Cavanag h Elizabeth A. Weave r Marilyn Kell y Maura D. Corriga n 

## PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, J ustices



## v SC: 136447 COA: 283037 St. Clair CC: 03-001253-FC SCOTT GERALD MARTIN, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _________________________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the March 21, 2008 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, a nd it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishi ng entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).

s1020 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 27, 2008

Clerk
<PAGE>   1
                                                                Exhibit 10(b)(b)

                      AMENDMENT TO STOCKHOLDERS' AGREEMENT


         THIS AMENDMENT TO STOCKHOLDERS' AGREEMENT is entered into this 1st day
of January, 1995, by and among Charles A. Hayes, George Greenberg, Maurice
Fishman (Messrs. Hayes, Greenberg, Fishman being collectively hereinafter
referred to as the "Stockholders"), and Guilford Mills, Inc., a Delaware
Corporation (the "Company".)


                                  WITNESSETH:


         WHEREAS, the Stockholders and the Company entered into a Stockholders'
Agreement, dated June 22, 1990, pursuant to which the Company has a right of
first refusal in the event any Stockholder transfers (other than by gift) his
shares of Company common stock (the "1990 Stockholders' Agreement"); and

         WHEREAS, the Stockholders and the Company believe that it is desirable
to amend the 1990 Stockholders' Agreement in order to clarify that such
agreement applies to all shares of Company common stock beneficially owned by
any Stockholder.

         NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants and conditions
contained herein and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and
sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, and parties hereto agree as
follows:

         1.      The following paragraph is added to paragraph 2 the 199
                 Stockholders' Agreement immediately following sub-paragraph
                 2(e):

                          (f)     For purpose of this Agreement, a person shall
                          be deemed o own shares Company common stock if he
                          beneficially owns such stock within the meaning of
                          Rule 13d-3, promulgated under the Securities Exchange
                          Act of 1934, as amended.

         2.      Except as otherwise expressly set forth above, the 1990
                 Stockholders' Agreement remains unmodified and in full force
                 and effect.



                   [Signatures appear on the following page]
<PAGE>   2




         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment as of the
day and year first above mentioned.




                                           STOCKHOLDERS:


                                           ___________________________________
                                            Charles A. Hayes


                                           ___________________________________
                                            George Greenberg


                                           ___________________________________
                                            Maurice Fishman



                                           GUILFORD MILLS, INC.



                                           By:_____________________________
                                              Terrence E. Geremski
                                              Vice President, Chief Financial
                                              Officer and Treasurer
###### Editorial Note on Part 0

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 0 appear at 73 FR 73 FR 54947, Sept. 24, 2008.

#### § 0.64-2 Delegation respecting transfer of offenders to or from foreign countries.

The Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division, in consultation with the Assistant Attorney General for National Security in matters related to the National Security Division's activities, is authorized to exercise all of the power and authority vested in the Attorney General under 18 U.S.C. 4102 that has not been delegated to the Director of the Bureau of Prisons under 28 CFR 0.96b, including specifically the authority to find appropriate or inappropriate the transfer of offenders to or from a foreign country under a treaty as referred to in Public Law 95-144. The Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division, is authorized to re-delegate this authority within the Criminal Division to the Deputy Assistant Attorneys General in the Criminal Division and to the Director, the Deputy Directors, and the Associate Director supervising the International Prisoner Transfer Unit of the Office of International Affairs.

[Order No. 2865-2007, 72 FR 10065, Mar. 7, 2007, as amended by AG Order No. 4212-2018, 83 FR 32580, July 13, 2018]
#### MATILDE A. CRUZ, Plaintiff v. DREW KAYE; TROPICS, INC., a Guam Corporation; JUAN PEDRO RUBIO Y BERRIO, a/k/a DON PEDRO; and FIRST CITY BANK, a/k/a CITI BANK, N.A., Defendants

Civil No. 743-76

Superior Court of Guam

September 15, 1976

BENSON, *Judge*

DEFAULT JUDGMENT FOR RESTITUTION OF PREMISES AND FORFEITURE OF LEASE

In this Action defendant, Tropics, Inc., a Guam corporation, having been regularly served with Summons and Complaint and having failed to plead or otherwise defend, the legal time for pleading or otherwise defending having expired, and default of said defendant having been entered according to law; plaintiff having this date presented proof in support of her complaint upon application of plaintiff, Judgment is hereby entered against defendant, Tropics, Inc., pursuant to the prayer of said complaint.

WHEREFORE, by virtue of the law and by reason of the premises as aforesaid,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED:

1. Defendant, Tropics, Inc., a Guam corporation, is guilty of unlawful detainer of the premises described in the complaint, and that a Writ of Restitution issue therefor.

2. That plaintiff have judgment against defendant, Tropics, Inc., for the sum of $4,019.75, plus costs, disbursements, and reasonable counsel fees, namely, $1,595.00.

*3433. That the Lease Agreement dated August 24, 1971, recorded in the Department of Land Management, Government of Guam, under Document No. 105351, be and the same hereby is declared FORFEITED by the defendant, Tropics, Inc. The description of the property the subject of said Lease Agreement is as follows:

Lot No. 5140-2-1, Turnon, Dededo, Territory of Guam, containing an area of 4,289.00 square meters, more or less. The foregoing land is registered land, the last registered owner being Matilde A. Cruz, under Certificate of Title #22770.
#### § 44.202 Counting employees for jurisdictional purposes.

The Special Counsel will calculate the number of employees referred to in § 44.200(b)(1)(i) by counting all part-time and full-time employees employed on the date that the alleged discrimination occurred. The Special Counsel will use the 20 calendar week requirement contained in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e(b), for purposes of determining whether the exception of § 44.200(b)(1)(ii) applies, and will refer to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission charges of national origin discrimination that the Special Counsel determines are covered by 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Dock Mack, Appellant.

[823 NYS2d 740]

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Mario J. Rossetti, A.J.), rendered *January 14,*2005. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of manslaughter in the first degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed *(see People v Hidalgo,*91 NY2d 733, 737 [1998]). Present—Hurlbutt, A.EJ, Kehoe, Smith and Green, JJ.
### §395d. Forfeiture of property used for unlawful purposes

All guns, traps, teams, horses, or means of transportation of every nature or description used by any person or persons within said park limits when engaged in killing, trapping, ensnaring, or capturing such wild beasts, birds, or animals shall be forfeited to the United States and may be seized by the officers in said park and held pending the prosecution of any person or persons arrested under charge of violating the provisions of this Act, and upon conviction under this Act of such person or persons using said guns, traps, teams, horses, or other means of transportation, such forfeiture shall be adjudicated as a penalty in addition to the other punishment provided in this Act. Such forfeited property shall be disposed of and accounted for by and under the authority of the Secretary of the Interior.

(Apr. 19, 1930, ch. 200, §5, 46 Stat. 228.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This Act, referred to in text, is act Apr. 19, 1930, which is classified to section 395 to 395j of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Tables.

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

#### Hawai‘i Volcanoes National Park

Designation of portion of Hawaii National Park situated on island of Hawaii as Hawai‘i Volcanoes National Park, effective Sept. 22, 1961, see section 391d of this title.

#### Haleakalā National Park

Establishment of detached portion of Hawaii National Park lying on island of Maui as Haleakalā National Park, effective July 1, 1961, see section 396b of this title.
Exhibit 23















                     CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS



Board of Directors and Shareholders of
Hannaford Bros. Co.:


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
of Hannaford Bros. Co. and subsidiaries on Form S-8 (File Nos.
2-77902, 2-98387, 33-1281, 33-22666, 33-31624, 33-45273, 33-60119, 33-60655
and 33-60691) of our report dated January 15, 1997, on our audits of the
consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedules of
Hannaford Bros. Co. and subsidiaries as of December 28, 1996 and December
30, 1995, and for each of the three years in the period ended December 28,
1996, which report is included in this annual report on Form 10-K.


s/Coopers & Lybrand


Portland, Maine
March 12, 1997
### §33. Mortgages by lessees within the park

Any person, corporation, or company holding a lease within Yellowstone Park for the purposes described in section 32 of this title is authorized, with the approval of the Secretary of the Interior, to execute mortgages upon his or its rights, properties, and franchises, including his or its contract or contracts with the Secretary of the Interior, and such mortgages, together with the approval of the Secretary of the Interior may be filed for record in the office of the Secretary of the Interior, and when so recorded shall have all the effect of a public record. Any mortgage, lien, or encumbrance created under the provisions of this section shall be subject to the rights of the Government to compel the enforcement of the terms of the lease or contract of the mortgagor, and any purchaser under a foreclosure of such encumbrance shall take subject to all the conditions assumed by the original lessee or contractor.

(June 4, 1906, ch. 2570, 34 Stat. 207.)
Attachment G

- Worksheets uses to calculate registrant & EPA wage rates

2015

AGENCY HOURS, RATES * TOTAL

Collection Activities Mgmt, $/hr Technical,

$/hr Clerical, $/hr Hours Costs

$124.09 $81.53 $46.42

If necessary, assign

an EPA company

number to the

supplemental

distributor. - - 0.08 0.08 $3.71 $1.24 only 1/3, see

footnote

Verify, acknowledge

receipt 1 - - 0.03 0.03 $1.39

• Initial product

screening 2 - 0.36

- 0.36 $29.35 $141.77

• Product review

meeting 2 0.63

- - 0.63 $78.18

• Process

disapproved product

distribution

information 2 - 0.42

- 0.42 $34.24 $14.18 10% reviewed,

see footnote

Process: Enter form

information into

electronic file in

OPPIN - 0.5

- 0.5 $40.77

File and maintain

information - 0.02

- 0.02 $1.63

Total 0.63 1.3 0.11 2.04 $59.20

* U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2014) ; NAICS 999100

– Federal Executive Branch (OES Designation). Available from BLS Web site at

http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics4_999100.htm

1 Approximately 90% of forms received by EPA are completed correctly and undergo standard processing, requiring only clerical and technical labor types.

2 The rest of the forms (approximately 10%) require review by the Agency's product review team, requiring all three t ypes of labor.

3 The rest of the forms (approximately 10%) require review by the Agency's product review team, requiring all three types of la bor. In the calculations the maximum time was

used, but the expected cost $14.18 [10% * $141.77 (29.35+78.18+34.24)] was used for total.

2.04 TRUE
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 the Court has determined that this

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-51218 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ROBERT LEE MORRISON,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. A-00-CR-62-All-JN

September 27, 2001

Before GARWOOD, JONES and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Robert Lee Morrison appeals his conviction, following entry of

a guilty plea, for possession with intent to distribute more than

50 grams of crack cocaine. Morrison contends that his plea was

involuntary because he was not admonished at rearraignment of his

rights under Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000), to have

the Government prove and the jury determine the drug quantity2

beyond a reasonable doubt. Morrison contends that the superseding

information was fatally defective because it reported that he

committed the drug offense four months after he entered a plea to

the charge. Morrison contends that his attorney provided

ineffective assistance because counsel did not object to the lack

of an Apprend i admonishment and did not challenge the alleged

defective charging instrument.

We have reviewed the record and the briefs submitted by the

parties and hold that all requirements of Rule 11 were met in this

case. S ee Rule 11(c); United States v. Cuevas-Andrade

, 232 F.3d

440, 444 (5th Cir. 2000). Moreover, any error would be harmless.

United States v. Reyna , 130 F.3d 104, 112 (5th Cir. 1997); United

States v. Coronado

, 554 F.2d 166, 173 (5th Cir. 1977). We further

hold that Morrison has not shown reversible error in conj unction

with his claim that the obviously typographical date error in the

superseding information rendered the charging instrument void.

Berger v. United States
, 55 S.Ct. 629, 630 (1935), overruled on

other grounds

, Stirone v. United S tates , 80 S.Ct. 270 (1960);

Russell v. United States
, 429 F.2d 237, 238 (5th Cir. 1970).

Finally, Morrison has not sho wn that counsel’s performance was

objectively unreasonable. S ee Strickland v. Washington

, 104 S.Ct.

2052, 2065-68 (1984); United States v. Wilkes

, 20 F.3d 651, 653

(5th Cir. 1994) (counsel not deficient for failing to raise legally

meritless claim). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court3

is

AFFIRMED.
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

**____________** No. 22
- 30613 Summary Calendar

**____________ United States of America,**  Plaintiff

— Appellee **,** versus **Kenny W. Efferson,** Defendant

— Appellant **.**

**______________________________** Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana USDC No. 3:16
- CR
- 120 - 1

**_________________ _____________**  Before **Stewart, Dennis,** and **Willett,** Circuit Judges **. Per Curiam**  **:** ***** The attorney appointed to represent Kenny W. Efferson has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Efferson has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur

**_____________________** * This opinion is not designated for publication. See **5th Cir .**  **R .**  47.5. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED April 21, 2023 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 22-30613 Document: 00516720554 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/21/2023No. 22
- 30613

2 with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is **GRANTED** , counsel is excused from further re sponsibilities herein, and the appeal is **DISMISSED** . See **5th Cir. R.** 42.2 . Case: 22-30613 Document: 00516720554 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/21/2023
#### § 6.1 Application for surrender.

Every application for surrender of a license shall state the reason therefor; and, except in the case of an application for surrender of a license for a minor project, or for a transmission line only, shall be executed by the licensee and filed in the same form and manner as the application for license, and shall be accompanied by the license and all amendments thereof. Public notice of such application shall be given at least 30 days prior to action upon the application.

(Secs. 308 and 309; 49 Stat. 858, 859 ([16 U.S.C. 825g](https://www.govinfo.gov/link/uscode/16/825g), [825h](https://www.govinfo.gov/link/uscode/16/825h)))

[Order 570, [42 FR 40191](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/42-FR-40191), Aug. 9, 1977]

Cross References:

For application for license, general provisions, see [§§ 4.30 to 4.33](/on/2024-07-29/title-18/section-4.30), inclusive, of this chapter. For application for license for proposed major project or minor part thereof, see [§§ 4.40 to 4.41](/on/2024-07-29/title-18/section-4.40), inclusive, of this chapter. For application for license for constructed major project or minor part thereof, see [§§ 4.50](/on/2024-07-29/title-18/section-4.50) and [4.51 of this chapter](/on/2024-07-29/title-18/section-4.51).
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-1648

ANDREW KARIM ABDESLEM,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

DALIA LUTTWAK; EDWARD LUTTWAK,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA97-4108-PJM)

Submitted: June 18, 1998 Decided: July 8, 1998

Before MURNAGHAN and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Andrew Karim Abdeslem, Appellant Pro Se. Harold Krauthamer,

KRAUTHAMER & STAHL, Chevy Chase, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Andrew Karim Abdeslem appeals the district court’s dismissal

of his civil complaint charging the defendants with federal crimes.

We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning

of the district court. Abdeslem v. Luttwak, No. CA-97-4108-PJM (D.

Md. Apr.10, 1998). 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
#### § 41.53 Reasonable accommodation.

A recipient shall make reasonable accommodation to the known physical or mental limitations of an otherwise qualified handicapped applicant or employee unless the recipient can demonstrate that the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the operation of its program.
When something is going on with your 

child, it can be hard to get the full picture. 

Your student assistance professional is 

there to help you develop one.

Student assistance professionals are there to provide the support 

you need. They will work with you, your child, and your child’s 

teachers to develop a complete picture of what’s going on and 

engage resources to help.

www.underagedrinking.samhsa.gov

#TalkTheyHearYou PEP20-03-01-072
Exhibit
      32.2





**CERTIFICATIONS
      PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION
      1350)**









In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Teliphone Corp. (the "Company") on
      Form
      10-QSB/A for the period ending December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, George Metrakos,
      Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
      2002, that:




(1)
        The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
      of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and




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




By:
            /s/ George
                MetrakosGeorge
                MetrakosChief
                Financial Officer




Date:
      May
      10, 2007