alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2008079EN.01002501.xml

| 29.3.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 79/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.3.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 79/25

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 February 2008 — BUPA and Others v Commission

(Case T-289/03) (1)

1

(State aid - Risk equalisation scheme introduced by Ireland on the private medical insurance market - Aid system - Services of general economic interest - Article 86(2) EC - Commission decision not to raise objections - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Principles of necessity and proportionality)

(2008/C 79/48)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: British United Provident Association Ltd (BUPA) (London, United Kingdom); BUPA Insurance Ltd (London); and BUPA Ireland Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: N. Green QC, K. Bacon and J. Burke, Barristers, and B. Amory, lawyer)

Applicants:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: initially N Khan and J. Flett, then N. Kahn and T. Scharf, Agents)

Defendant:

Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands represented by: N. Bel, Agent; Ireland (represented by: D. O'Hagan, Agent, with G. Hogan SC and E. Regan, Barrister); and Voluntary Health Insurance Board (Dublin) (represented by: D. Collins, G. FitzGerald and D. Clarke, Solicitors, and P. Gallagher SC)

Interveners in support of the defendant:

Re:

Application by, inter alia, BUPA Ireland Ltd, a provider of private medical insurance services in Ireland, for annulment of the Commission's Decision C(2003)1322 final of 13 May 2003 not to raise objections under Article 4(2) and (3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article [88 EC] (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1), concerning the establishment of a risk equalisation scheme (RES) in the Irish health insurance market (State aid N 46/2003 — Ireland).

inter alia

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the application; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the application;

| 2. | Orders British United Provident Association Ltd (BUPA), BUPA Insurance Ltd and BUPA Ireland Ltd to bear their own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Commission and the Voluntary Health Insurance Board; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders British United Provident Association Ltd (BUPA), BUPA Insurance Ltd and BUPA Ireland Ltd to bear their own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Commission and the Voluntary Health Insurance Board;

| 3. | Orders Ireland and the Kingdom of the Netherlands to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Ireland and the Kingdom of the Netherlands to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 264, 1.11.2003.

1

---
#### SPROESSIG, Respondent, v. INTERURBAN ST. RY. CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

March 21, 1905.)

Appeal from City Court of New York, Trial Term. Action by Charles H. Sproessig, Jr., against the Interurban Street Railway Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, and from an order denying a motion for new trial on the minutes, defendant appeals. Affirmed. Bayard H. Ames and F. Angelo Gaynor, for appellant. Wager, Acker & Wager, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The question of the defendant’s negligence and the plaintiff’s freedom from negligence were fairly submitted to the *1147jury, and there is sufficient evidence to sustain the verdict; and the judgment and order should be affirmed, with costs.
### §166. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, acts Mar. 3, 1925, ch. 426, §5, 43 Stat. 1111; Mar. 3, 1927, ch. 355, 44 Stat. 1388; Sept. 1, 1937, ch. 895, 50 Stat. 887; July 26, 1947, ch. 343, title II, §205(a), 61 Stat. 501, authorized Secretaries of Army and Navy to designate representatives to cooperate with Department of the Interior to effectuate the purposes of this chapter, and gave them the right of access to plants, data, and accounts. See section 7 of act Mar. 3, 1925, as amended by Pub. L. 86–777, which is classified to section 167e of this title.
Exhibit 32.2



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 Constar International Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, William S. Rymer, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to 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 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.



|                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------
|/s/ William S. Rymer                                
|William S. Rymer                                    
|Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|                                                    
|August 18, 2005
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-03-00405-CR

Jerome Morgan Middlebrook, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 27TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 46795, HONORABLE JOE CARROLL, JUDGE PRESIDING

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

Appellant Jerome Morgan Middlebrook was placed on deferred adjudication

community supervision after he pleaded guilty to aggravated assault against a public servant. Tex.

Pen. Code Ann. § 22.02 (West Supp. 2003). At a subsequent hearing on the State’s motion to

adjudicate, appellant pleaded true to all but one of the alleged violations of supervision. The court

adjudged him guilty and sentenced him to ten years’ imprisonment.

Appellant’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief concluding that the appeal is

frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no

arguable grounds to be advanced. See also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988); High v. State, 573

S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974);

Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex.
2

Crim. App. 1969). A copy of counsel’s brief was delivered to appellant, and he was advised of his

right to examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed.

We have reviewed the record and counsel’s brief and agree that the appeal is frivolous

and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. Counsel’s

motion to withdraw is granted.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

__________________________________________

Jan P. Patterson, Justice

Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Kidd and Patterson

Affirmed

Filed: November 20, 2003

Do Not Publish
### §8464a. Relationship between annuity and workers' compensation

(a)(1) An individual is not entitled to receive—

(A) an annuity under subchapter II or V, and

(B) compensation for injury to, or disability of, such individual under subchapter I of chapter 81, other than compensation payable under section 8107,

covering the same period of time.

(2) An individual is not entitled to receive an annuity under subchapter IV and a concurrent benefit under subchapter I of chapter 81 on account of the death of the same person.

(3) Paragraphs (1) and (2) do not bar the right of a claimant to the greater benefit conferred by either this chapter or subchapter I of chapter 81.

(b) If an individual is entitled to an annuity under subchapter II, IV, or V, and the individual receives a lump-sum payment for compensation under section 8135 based on the disability or death of the same person, so much of the compensation as has been paid for a period extended beyond the date payment of the annuity commences, as determined by the Department of Labor, shall be refunded to that Department for credit to the Employees' Compensation Fund. Before the individual may receive the annuity, the individual shall—

(1) refund to the Department of Labor the amount representing the commuted compensation payments for the extended period; or

(2) authorize the deduction of the amount from the annuity.

Deductions from the annuity may be made from accrued or accruing payments. The amounts deducted and withheld from the annuity shall be transmitted to the Department of Labor for reimbursement to the Employees' Compensation Fund. When the Department of Labor finds that the financial circumstances of an individual entitled to an annuity under subchapter II, IV, or V warrant deferred refunding, deductions from the annuity may be prorated against and paid from accruing payments in such manner as the Department determines appropriate.

(Added Pub. L. 100–238, title I, §124(a)(1)(B), Jan. 8, 1988, 101 Stat. 1755.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

Provisions similar to this section were contained in section 8456 of this title prior to repeal by Pub. L. 100–238.

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective Jan. 1, 1987, and applicable with respect to benefits payable based on a death or disability occurring on or after that date, see section 124(c) of Pub. L. 100–238 set out as an Effective Date of 1988 Amendment note under section 8337 of this title.
§ 176.15 Waivers and extensions of deadlines. ( a ) After consultation with the LRA and HUD, and upon a finding that it is in the interest of the communities affected by the closure/realignment of the installation, DoD, through the Director of the Office of Economic Adjustment, may extend or postpone any deadline contained in this part.
( b ) Upon completion of a determination and finding of good cause, and except for deadlines and actions required on the part of DoD, HUD may waive any provision of §§ 176.20 through 176.45 of this part in any particular case, subject only to statutory limitations.
#### § 1800.14 Fee estimates (pre-request option).

In order to avoid unanticipated or potentially large fees, a requester may submit a request for a fee estimate. Pursuant to the Electronic Freedom of Information Act Amendments of 1996, NACIC will endeavor within twenty (20) days to provide an accurate estimate, and, if a request is thereafter submitted, NACIC will not accrue or charge fees in excess of our estimate without the specific permission of the requester.
### §8115. Determination of wage-earning capacity

(a) In determining compensation for partial disability, except permanent partial disability compensable under sections 8107–8109 of this title, the wage-earning capacity of an employee is determined by his actual earnings if his actual earnings fairly and reasonably represent his wage-earning capacity. If the actual earnings of the employee do not fairly and reasonably represent his wage-earning capacity or if the employee has no actual earnings, his wage-earning capacity as appears reasonable under the circumstances is determined with due regard to—

(1) the nature of his injury;

(2) the degree of physical impairment;

(3) his usual employment;

(4) his age;

(5) his qualifications for other employment;

(6) the availability of suitable employment; and

(7) other factors or circumstances which may affect his wage-earning capacity in his disabled condition.

(b) Section 8114(d) of this title is applicable in determining the wage-earning capacity of an employee after the beginning of partial disability.

(Pub. L. 89–554, Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 542.)

| Derivation | U.S. Code | Revised Statutes and Statutes at Large |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 5 U.S.C. 763. | Sept. 7, 1916, ch. 458, §13, 39 Stat. 746. |
| | | Oct. 14, 1949, ch. 691, §204, 63 Stat. 864. |
| | | Sept. 13, 1960, Pub. L. 86–767, §204, 74 Stat. 908. |

Statutes at Large

Standard changes are made to conform with the definitions applicable and the style of this title as outlined in the preface to the report.
§ 7.23 Application requirements. ( a ) *Brattice cloth.* A single application may address two or more products if the products differ only in: weight of the finished product; weight or weave of the same fabric or scrim; or thickness or layers of the same film. Applications shall include the following information: ( 1 ) Trade name.
( 2 ) Product designations (for example, style and code number).
( 3 ) Color.
( 4 ) Type of brattice (for example, plastic or jute).
( 5 ) Weight of finished product.
( 6 ) Film: type, weight, thickness, supplier, supplier's stock number or designation, and percent of finished product by weight.
( 7 ) Scrim: Type, denier, weight, weave, the supplier, supplier's stock number or designation, and percent of finished product by weight.
( 8 ) Adhesive: type, supplier, supplier's stock number or designation, and percent of finished product by weight.
( b ) *Flexible ventilation tubing.* Applications shall include the product description information in paragraph (a) of this section and list the type of supporting structure, if applicable; inside diameters; and configurations.
( c ) *Rigid ventilation tubing.* A single application may address two or more products if the products differ only in diameters, lengths, configuration, or average wall thickness. Applications shall include the following information: ( 1 ) Trade name.
( 2 ) Product designations (for example, style and code numbers).
( 3 ) Color.
( 4 ) Type of ventilation tubing (for example, fiberglass, plastic, or polyethylene).
( 5 ) Inside diameter, configuration, and average wall thickness.
( 6 ) Suspension system (for example, metal hooks).
( 7 ) Base material: type, supplier, the supplier's stock number, and percent of finished product by weight.
( 8 ) Resin: type, supplier, the supplier's stock number, and percent of finished product by weight.
( 9 ) Flame retardant, if added during manufacturing: type, supplier, the supplier's stock number, and percent of finished product by weight.
[53 FR 23500, June 22, 1988, as amended at 60 FR 33722, June 29, 1995]
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1




                            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 Annual Report of Sionix Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending September 30, 2002, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), the undersigned,
James R. Houtz, President of the Company, certifies to the best of his
knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 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 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.

         Date: December 10, 2002                   /s/ James R. Houtz
                                                   ----------------------------
                                                       James R. Houtz
                                                       President


         This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.


                                       43
# C_2008128EN.01003002.xml

| 24.5.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 128/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.5.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/30

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 17 April 2008 — Cestas v Commission

(Case T-260/04) (1)

1

(Action for annulment - European Development Fund - Repayment of amounts paid - Debit note - Act not amenable to review - Preparatory act - Inadmissibility)

(2008/C 128/65)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Centro di educazione sanitaria e tecnologie appropriate sanitarie (Cestas) (Bologna (Italy) (represented initially by: N. Amadei and C. Turk, and subsequently by N. Amadei and P. Manzini, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. Montaguti and F. Dintilhac, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Annulment of the decision of 21 April 2004 of the Commission (Delegation in the Republic of Guinea), sent to the applicant by registered letter, ordering it to pay the amount of GNF 959 543 (EUR 397 126,02).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action as being inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action as being inadmissible.

| 2. | Orders the Centro di educazione sanitaria e tecnologie appropriate sanitarie (Cestas) to bear three fifths of its own costs and also to pay three fifths of the costs incurred by the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Centro di educazione sanitaria e tecnologie appropriate sanitarie (Cestas) to bear three fifths of its own costs and also to pay three fifths of the costs incurred by the Commission.

| 3. | Orders the Commission to bear two fifths of its own costs and also to pay two fifths of the costs incurred by Cestas. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Commission to bear two fifths of its own costs and also to pay two fifths of the costs incurred by Cestas.

---

(1)  OJ C 217, 28.8.2004.

1

---
EXHIBIT 31.1

               CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
      AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Gregory W. Faust, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Tangent Solutions, Inc.
(the "Company");

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

4. The Company's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing
and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the Company and we have:

   a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
information relating to the Company, including its consolidated subsidiary, is
made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period
in which this annual report is being prepared;

   b) evaluated the effectiveness of the Company's disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this annual
report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

   c) presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date;

5. The Company's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to the Company's auditors and the audit committee of
Company's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

   a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
controls which could adversely affect the Company's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial data and have identified for the Company's
auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

   b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the Company's internal controls; and

6. The Company's other certifying officer and I have indicated in this annual
report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in
other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to
the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: October 31, 2003

/s/ Gregory W. Faust
-----------------------
Gregory W. Faust
Chief Executive Officer
- 000100fc
- 000200fi
- 000300tp
- 00040000
- 00050000
- 00060000
- 00070001
- 00080002
- 00090000
- 00100000
- 00110000
- 00120000
- 00130000
- 00140000
- 00150000
- 00160000
- 00170000
- 00180000
- 00190000
- 00200000
- 00210000
- 00220000
- 00230000
- 00240000
- 00250000
- 00260000
- 00270000
- 00280000
- 00290000
- 00300000
- 00310003
- 00320004
- 00330005
- 00340006
- 00350000
- 00360000
- 00370000
- 00380000
- 00390000
- 00400000
- 00410000
- 00420000
- 00430007
- 00440008
- 00450000
- 00460000
- 00470009
- 00480010
- 00490000
- 00500000
- 00510011
- 00520012
- 00530013
- 00540014
- 00550015
- 00560016
- 005700bi
- 005800bc
Map 2-15: Alternative B

Areas Closed to Mineral Material Disposal

Related to Greater Sage Grouse Habitat

0 20 40 60 80

Kilometers

0 20 40 60 80

Miles

1

LUP Amendments Planning Area

Boundary

BLM Field Office Boundaries

Forest Service Planning Unit

Boundaries

Sage Grouse Priority Habitat

Management Area (Core)

Sage Grouse Priority Habitat

Management Area (Connectivity)

Closed to Mineral Material Disposal

Federal Salable Mineral Estate

County Boundaries

NO WARRANTY IS MADE BY THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

FOR USE OF THE DATA FOR PURPOSES NOT INTENDED BY BLM.

Wyoming Sage Grouse Land Use Plan Amendments

Final Environmental Impact Statement - May 2015

W Y O M I N G

M T

I D

M A P A R E A

Crook

Weston

Sundance

Rock Springs

Field Office

§ ̈¦80

U T

C O

N E

S D

Newcastle

Lusk

Douglas

Casper

Cheyenne

Wheatland Torrington

Laramie

Rawlins

Rock Springs

Green River

Evanston

Kemmerer

Pinedale

Rawlins Field Offi ce

Casper Field Offi ce

Newcastle

Field Office

Pinedale

Field Office

Kemmerer

Field Office

Bridger -

Teton

N.F.

Thunder

Basin

N.G.

Thunder

Basin

N.G.

Medicine

Bow

N.F.

Medicine

Bow

N.F.

Medicine

Bow

N.F.

Medicine Bow

N.F.

§ ̈¦25

§ ̈¦25

§ ̈¦90

§ ̈¦80

§ ̈¦80

Platte

G

o

s

h

e

n

Alb

a

n

y

L

a

r

a

mie

C

o

n

v

e

r

s

e

Nio

b

r

a

r

a

Nat rona

Carbon

S

w

e

etw

ate

r

C

a

r

b

o

n

Sublette

Lincoln

T

eto

n

Fr

e

m

o

nt

Wyoming Sage Grouse Land Use Plan Amendments

Note: Identified restrictions displayed on this map

are in addition to existing restrictions already

approved through previous planning efforts.