alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 12 March 2008 – European Service Network v Commission**

**(Case T-332/03)**

Public service contracts – Community tendering procedure – Provision of services for the development and provision of services in support of the Community Research and Development
Service (CORDIS) –- Rejection of a tender – Principles of equal treatment as between tenderers and transparency – Compliance with the award criteria set out in the tendering specifications

1.                     *European Communities’ public procurement – Tendering procedure (see paras 122, 125-127, 130, 142, 145, 147-148)*

2.                     *European Communities’ public procurement – Conclusion of a contract following a call for tenders (see para. 213)*

3.                     *Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements (Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 21, first para.,
and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Arts 44(1)(c) and 48(2)) (see paras 229-231)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | APPLICATION for the annulment of the decision to award the contract which is the subject of the Commission’s call for tenders ENTR/02/55 – CORDIS Lot 1 for the development and provision of services in support of the Community Research and Development Service (CORDIS). |

**Operative part**

The Court:

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

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders European Service Network (ESN) to pay the costs. |
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 127 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 127

 Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the United 
   States should support the safe and responsible development of its 
energy resources via drilling, in an effort to maintain a robust energy 
   supply chain which promotes national security, safeguards against 
     energy scarcity, and reduces energy poverty for all Americans.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 14, 2023

Mr. Moore of Alabama (for himself, Mr. Bost, Mr. Donalds, Mr. Newhouse, 
and Mr. Steube) submitted the following resolution; which was referred 
to the Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committee 
    on Education and the Workforce, for a period to be subsequently 
   determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such 
 provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the United 
   States should support the safe and responsible development of its 
energy resources via drilling, in an effort to maintain a robust energy 
   supply chain which promotes national security, safeguards against 
     energy scarcity, and reduces energy poverty for all Americans.

Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to 
        maintain a strong domestic energy supply;
Whereas the timely delivery of affordable energy domestically and 
        internationally requires an advanced and robust domestic energy supply;
Whereas energy workers and businesses require clear and supportive Federal 
        policy to adequately maintain and develop the domestic energy supply 
        chain to meet growing energy needs;
Whereas recent technological advances in energy resource exploration, drilling, 
        completion, and production have led to unprecedented levels of 
        efficiency and emissions reductions; and
Whereas increased production and use of American natural gas have helped the 
        United States reduce its greenhouse gas emissions: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that 
the United States should support the safe and responsible development 
of its energy resources via drilling, including by--
            (1) repealing administrative precedent that limits the 
        exploration, drilling, and production of domestic natural 
        resources on Federal lands, both onshore and offshore;
            (2) clearly defining the relationship drilling has to 
        future production and delivery of energy resources; and
            (3) incentivizing workforce development in the domestic 
        energy industry of the United States.
                                 <all>
```
### [§3364. Repealed. Pub. L. 94–183, §2(6), Dec. 31, 1975, 89 Stat. 1057]

Section, Pub. L. 89–554, Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 427, related to promotion to regular force of substitute employees in postal field service.
Order entered November 13, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-00142-CV

DARREN MELTON, Appellant

V.

601 JEALOUSE, LLC, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-18-06444-B

ORDER

Before the Court is the November 11, 2019 second request of Robin Washington, Official 

Court Reporter for County Court at Law No. 2, for an extension of time to file the reporter’s 

record. We GRANT the request and extend the time to November 18, 2019. We caution Ms. 

Washington, that further extension requests will be disfavored.

/s/ BILL WHITEHILL

JUSTICE
August 14, 2015

Mr. Floyd Fishel and Mr. Cooper Dunn

OP Media, LLC

2221 Peachtree Road, NE, Suite D Box 412

Atlanta, GA 30309

Dear Messrs. Fishel and Dunn:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from 

part 21; §§ 45.23(b), 61.113(a) and (b), 91.7(a), 91.9(b)(2), 91.103, 91.109, 91.119, 91.121,

91.151(a), 91.203(a) and (b), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(2), and 91.417(a) and (b) of 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we cannot process your 

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Cannot Process Your Request

We entered your exemption request on behalf of OP Media, LLC into the public docket 

(No. FAA−2015−1900) on May 26, 2015, but we are unable to process your request any 

further. The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy 

enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

For more detailed information relating to submitting petitions for exemption, please visit 

http://aes.faa.gov/petition/index.html. This website helps the petitioner to meet Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) requirements outlines in § 11.81 and helps answer any 

questions you may have.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must submit the requested information 

within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption 

at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. 
2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further. 

If you have any questions you may call the 333 Information Line (202) 267-2999.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
3
Exhibit 4.4.2


 


Joinder
Agreement to the Exchange and Registration Rights Agreement


 


Upon
the consummation of the Acquisition, the undersigned hereby agrees to be bound
by all the obligations of an Issuer under the terms of the Exchange and
Registration Rights Agreement (the “Registration Rights Agreement”) dated
December 21, 2005, among CCMG Acquisition Corporation, a Delaware corporation,
and the Purchasers. The undersigned further agrees that all references in the
Registration Rights Agreement to the “Issuer” and the “Company” shall be
references to the undersigned. Capitalized terms used, but not defined, in this
Joinder Agreement to the Exchange and Registration Rights Agreement shall have
the meanings assigned to them in the Registration Rights Agreement.


 


 


Dated: December 21, 2005


 

















 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the
undersigned has executed this agreement this 21st day of December,
2005.


 


 


	
   

  	
  THE HERTZ CORPORATION

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
   

  	
  /s/ Robert H. Rillings

  
	
   

  	
  Name:

  	
  Robert H. Rillings

  
	
   

  	
  Title:

  	
  Treasurer

  
				



 


 


Signature Page to Joinder Agreement to Exchange and Registration Rights
Agreement in respect of Senior Subordinated Notes
RESTATED CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION

of

ENERGY CONVERSION DEVICES, INC.

1.        The present name of the corporation (hereinafter called the “Corporation”) is ENERGY CONVERSION DEVICES, INC.  The date of filing the original certificate of incorporation of ENERGY CONVERSION DEVICES, INC. with the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware is September 3, 1964.

2.        The provisions of the certificate of incorporation of the Corporation as heretofore amended and/or supplemented, are hereby restated and integrated into the single instrument which is hereinafter set forth, and which is entitled Certificate of Incorporation of ENERGY CONVERSION DEVICES, INC., without any discrepancy between the provisions of the certificate of incorporation as heretofore amended and supplemented and the provisions of the said single instrument hereinafter set forth.

3.        The Board of Directors of the Corporation has duly adopted this Restated Certificate of Incorporation pursuant to the provisions of sections 242 and 245 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware in the form set forth as follows:

Certificate of Incorporation

of

ENERGY CONVERSION DEVICES, INC.

FIRST:    The name of the corporation shall be ENERGY CONVERSION DEVICES, INC. (hereinafter called the ''Corporation”).

SECOND:    The registered office of the Corporation in the State of Delaware is to be located in the City of Dover, County of Kent.  The name of its registered agent is The Prentice-Hall Corporation System, Inc., whose address is 2711 Centerville Road, Suite 400, Wilmington, DE 19808, County of New Castle. 

THIRD:    The nature of the business of the Corporation and the objects and purposes proposed to be transacted, promoted and carried on by it are to do any or all of the things herein 

 

1

----
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Fernando Guerrero v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01

- 1 7

- 00 4 6 2

- CR

Trial court case number: 1 49 3328

Trial court: 351st District Court of Harris County

On December 5, 2017, we abated this appeal and remanded the case to the trial

court. In the abatement order, we directed the trial court to determine appointed trial

counsel’s motion to withdraw and, if necessary, appoint counsel, at no expense to

appellan t, to represent him on appeal. The trial court clerk has filed a supplemental

clerk’s record that includes the trial court’s December 7, 2017 order appointing Scott C.

Pope of the Harris County Public Defender’s Office to represent appellant on appeal.

Acc ordingly, we REINSTATE this case on the Court’s active docket.

On January 8, 2018, appellant filed a notice designating Daucie Schindler of the

Harris County Public Defender’s Office as new lead counsel for appellant. See T EX

. R.

A PP

. P. 6.1(c). The Cler k of this Court is directed to note Daucie Schindler as appointed

counsel for appellant on the docket of this Court. See id. 6.1(c), 6.3.

Appellant’s brief is due to be filed in this appeal no later than 30 days from the

date of this order.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Russell Lloyd

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: January 1 8 , 2018
<PAGE>

                     AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

         THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into as of this 1st day of January,
2001, by and between MICHAEL FOODS, INC., a Minnesota corporation (hereinafter
referred to as "Michael Foods"), and JAMES D. CLARKSON (hereinafter referred to
as "Clarkson").

         WHEREAS, Michael Foods and Clarkson have heretofore entered into an
employment agreement dated as of August 6, 1999; and

         WHEREAS, Michael Foods and Clarkson desire to amend Sections 2 and 3 of
said agreement to amend and clarify certain terms thereof.

         NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and of the terms and
conditions set forth, the parties agree as follows:

         1. Section 2 of the employment agreement between Michael Foods and
Clarkson dated as of August 6, 1999 is hereby amended by substituting for the
phrase "shall continue through December 31, 2000", the following:

                    SHALL CONTINUE THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2001

         2. Section 3 of the employment agreement between Michael Foods and
Clarkson dated as of August 6, 1999 is hereby amended by substituting for the
phrase "for each of the calendar years of this Agreement from January 1, 1999
through December 31, 2000 of at least $194,000", the following:

                    FOR EACH OF THE CALENDAR YEARS OF THIS AGREEMENT FROM
                    JANUARY 1, 2001 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2001 OF AT LEAST
                    $250,000

Except as otherwise provided herein, the employment agreement between Michael
Foods and Clarkson dated as of August 6, 1999 shall remain in full force and
effect.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement the date
and year above written.

                                 MICHAEL FOODS, INC.


                                 By           /s/ Gregg A. Ostrander
                                   ---------------------------------------------

                                 Its            Chairman/Pres./CEO
                                    --------------------------------------------

                                                /s/ J.D. Clarkson
                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                                JAMES D. CLARKSON


                                        1
/N^or-o^T- /??^ - ^^^9? 

^::mRTMENTOF 

••' l 

''^ORTATfON 

OPERATIONS 

TELEPHON E :.:I ^ m P hss 

COOPERATIVE , INC . 

January 13,2011 

Hon. Ray LaHood, Secretary 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

RE: Continuation of Alaska Airlines' Essential Air Service at Cordova, Gustavus, Petersburg, Wrangell, 

and Yakutat, Alaska, Docket OST-1998-4899 

Dear Secretary LaHood: 

This letter is to express our strong support for the selection of Alaska Airlines to continue to provide 

essential air service to our community. The daUy jet service Alaska currently provides to Cordova is 

critical for the continued access and economic wrell being our community requires as well as that of this 

entire region of the state. Jet sei-vice is what sets Cordova apart from other rural areas and makes us a viable 

community. 

Alaska's current pattern of service, usmg jet au-craft, meets crucial needs that would be difBcult, if not 

unpossible, to meet with any other type of service or ahcraft type: 

Alaska's service connects Southeast Alaska passengers to one or more major communities of interest, with 

single-plane service to Anchorage, Juneau, Ketchikan or Seattle. From these hubs, our community can 

access the au-line's extensive route system and benefit marketing relationships with other carriers. 

The 737-400 combination passenger and cargo aircraft, which Alaska Ahlmes proposes to continue using 

on this route, provides freight, mail and cargo capacity that a non -jet carrier simply cannot provide. 

Further the 737-400 combi aircraft is equipped with Required Navigation Performance Technology 

precision technology, which enables the airline to reliably access the airport during inclement weather, thus 

reducing diversions and canceUations and, in turn, enabling people and products to dependably reach the 

community, hi sum. Alaska's jet service is critical to the economic weU being of our commumty. 

For these reasons, we respectfuUy urge DOT to select Alaska Airlines to contmue to provide essential air 

service to Southeast Alaska, as the affline has successfiilly done for more than thirty years. 

Smcerely, / j 

Paul Kelly, 

General Manager/CEO 

c: Susan Kurland, Assistant Secretary for Aviation and hitemational Affehs 

Dennis DeVay, Chief, EAS and Domestic Analysis 

The Honorable Sean Pamell, Governor, State of Alaska 

Marc A. Luiken, Commissioner, Alaska State Dept. of Transportation & Public FaciUties 

PO Box 459 

Cordova, AK 99574 

Phone: 907 481 23J5 

Pax:907 424 2344
TYNESHA M. LEWIS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D15-1270

_____________________________/

Opinion filed October 20, 2015.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Okaloosa County.

Michael Flowers, Judge.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant Public 

Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant; Tynesha M. Lewis, pro se, Appellant. 

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We affirm this Anders1 appeal but do so without prejudice to the appellant 

filing a timely rule 3.850 motion to address the claim raised in her pro se initial 

 

1 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
2

brief, which, from the record, appears to have merit but which has not been 

preserved for this appeal.2

AFFIRMED.

BENTON, WETHERELL, and ROWE, JJ., CONCUR.

 

2 We further note that the 10-year sentence imposed for the third-degree felony in 

14-CF-2478 is illegal because it exceeds the statutory maximum. This issue has 

also not been preserved for this appeal.
#### GRANTHAM v. R. G. BARRY CORP.

No. 556P97

Case below: 127 N.CApp. 529

Petition by defendants for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 5 March 1998.
**Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 May 2008 – Ferriere Nord v Commission**

**(Case C-49/05 P)**

Appeal – State aid – Formal examination procedure – Community framework for State aid for environmental protection – Rights of the parties – Invitation to submit observations – Article 88(2) EC – Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 – Legitimate expectations – Legal certainty – Environmental purpose of the investment

1.                     *State aid – Planned aid – Examination by the Commission – Requirement to act within a reasonable time (Council Regulation
No 659/1999, Art. 7(6)) (see paras 48-50)*

2.                     *State aid – Administrative procedure – Right of the parties concerned to submit their comments – Amendment during the procedure
of the applicable Community guidelines (Art. 88(2) EC) (see paras 68, 78, 81)*

3.                     *Appeals – Grounds – Plea unsupported by legal argument – Inadmissible (Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art.
58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 112(1)(c)) (see para. 99)*

4.                     *Appeals – Grounds – Mistaken assessment of the facts – Inadmissibility – Review by the Court of Justice of the assessment
of the evidence – Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 225(1) EC; Statute of the Court
of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see para. 127)*

**Re:**

| | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 18 November 2004 in Case T‐176/01 | Ferriere Nord | v | Commission | , dismissing an action for, first, the annulment of Commission Decision 2001/829/EC, ECSC of 28 March 2001 on the State aid which Italy is planning to grant to Ferriere Nord SpA (OJ 2001 L 310, p. 22), declaring incompatible with the common market aid notified as environmental aid which the autonomous Region of Friuli-Venezia Giulia (Italy) is planning to grant to the applicant in the form of a financial contribution to investments in new plant for the production of electrowelded wire mesh to reduce noise and eliminate waste in the form of iron oxide, and, secondly, compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant following adoption of that decision. |

**Operative part:**

The Court

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

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders Ferriere Nord SpA to pay the costs; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 3. | | Orders the Italian Republic to bear its own costs. |
**Exhibit 31 (a)**

 

**Citizens Financial Corp.**

**Certification Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

I, Robert J. Schoonover, President and Chief Executive Officer of Citizens Financial Corp., certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Citizens Financial Corp; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact 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 report; 

 

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

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as definedin Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, includingits consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

 

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

 

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses inthe design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: 5/24/05