alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2015026EN.01002101.xml

| 26.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 26/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 26/21

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Castellón (Spain) lodged on 27 November 2014 — Juan Carlos Sánchez Morcillo, María del Carmen Abril García v Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A.

(Case C-539/14)

(2015/C 026/25)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Referring court

Audiencia Provincial de Castellón

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Juan Carlos Sánchez Morcillo, María del Carmen Abril García

Applicants:

Defendant: Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A.

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Must Article 7(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC (1), in conjunction with Articles 47, 34(3) and 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (2), be interpreted as precluding a procedural provision of the kind laid down in Article 695(4) of the Spanish Law on Civil Procedure, applicable to appeals against a decision determining the outcome of an objection to enforcement proceedings in relation to mortgaged or pledged goods, which allows an appeal to be brought only against an order staying the proceedings, disapplying an unfair term or dismissing an opposition based on an unfair term, the immediate consequence of which is that more legal remedies on appeal are available to the seller or supplier seeking enforcement than to the consumer against whom enforcement is sought?

1

2

---

(1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts

1

OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.

(2)  OJ 2000, C 364, p. 1.

2

---
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.38


                                AMENDMENT TO THE
                               DOR BIOPHARMA, INC.
                AMENDED AND RESTATED 1995 OMNIBUS INCENTIVE PLAN


The Amended and Restated 1995 Omnibus Incentive Plan of DOR BioPharma, Inc. (the
"Company"), as initially adopted by the Company's Board of Directors on April
24, 1995, amended on July 15, 1996, amended and restated on October 21, 1997,
and amended on February 11, 1998, February 21, 2001, May 16, 2001 and September
26, 2001 (as so amended, the "Plan") is hereby amended, subject to approval at a
meeting of stockholders by the vote of a majority in voting interest of the
stockholders of the Company, present in person or by proxy and entitled to vote
thereat and thereon, as follows:

1. To increase the number of shares of Common Stock issuable under the Plan to
11,000,000 shares, Section V.A. of Article One of the Plan is hereby amended by
deleting the number "4,500,000" and substituting therefore the number
"11,000,000."

2. To increase the maximum number of shares of Common Stock underlying options
and separately exercisable stock appreciation rights that any person
participating in the Plan may receive in any year to 2,500,000 shares, Section
V.C. of Article One of the Plan is hereby amended by deleting the number
"750,000" and substituting therefore the number "2,500,000."

3. As modified herein, the Plan shall remain in full force and effect.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this amendment to be executed by its
duly authorized officer this 23rd day of December, 2002.




                                             DOR BIOPHARMA, INC.

                                             By: /s/ William D. Milling
                                                --------------------------------
                                                 William D. Milling
                                                 Controller/Treasurer/Secretary
# C_2015406EN.01004501.xml

| 7.12.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 406/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.12.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 406/45

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single Judge) of 27 October 2015 — Ameryckx v Commission

(Case F-140/14) (1)

((Civil service - Member of the contract staff - Function group - Grading - Plea of inadmissibility - Concept of an act adversely affecting the applicant - Confirmatory decision - New and substantial fact - Manifest inadmissibility))

(2015/C 406/47)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Marianella Ameryckx (Rhode-Saint-Genèse, Belgium) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Tymen, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and G. Berscheid, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision refusing to ‘reconstruct’ the applicant’s career by re-grading her, from 1 March 2005, in a higher function group, and an application for compensation in respect of the material and non-material harm allegedly incurred.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Ms Ameryckx is to bear her own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Ms Ameryckx is to bear her own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  
  OJ C 65, 23.2.2015, p. 55.

---
Exhibit 10.39
 EVERGREEN SOLAR, INC.
 AMENDED AND RESTATED
CHANGE OF CONTROL SEVERANCE AGREEMENT
 
 RECITALS
     AGREEMENT
  Term of Agreement
 At-Will Employment




---



##### 



Acceleration of Vesting on Change of Control
 Severance Benefits
 Termination without Cause or Resignation for Good Reason in Connection with a Change
of Control
 Accrued Compensation
 Severance Payment
 Equity
 2




---



##### 



Continued Employee Benefits
  Voluntary Resignation; Termination for Cause
 Disability; Death
 Exclusive Remedy
 Code Section 409A
 Distributions
 3




---



##### 



Amendment
 Excise Tax Gross-Up
 Definition of Terms
 Affiliate
 Benefit Plans
 4




---



##### 



Cause
       Change of Control
  5




---



##### 



Disability
 Good Reason
      6




---



##### 



Involuntary Separation Pay Limit
 Successors
 The Companys Successors
 Executives Successors
 Notice
 General
 Notice of Termination
 Arbitration
 7




---



##### 



The
Company and Executive hereby agree to waive their right to have any dispute with the other party
resolved in a court of law by a judge or jury.
 Miscellaneous Provisions
 No Duty to Mitigate
 Waiver
 Headings
 Entire Agreement
 Choice of Law
 8




---



##### 



Severability
 Withholding
 Counterparts
 Remainder of page intentionally left blank
 9




---



##### 



COMPANY
    EVERGREEN SOLAR, INC.By:Title:EXECUTIVEDATE
    December 31, 2008 10
#### § 507.206 Additional requirements applying to the food safety plan.

The owner, operator, or agent in charge of the facility must sign and date the food safety plan upon initial completion and upon any modification.
# C_2018328EN.01003102.xml

| 17.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/31

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018 — The Goldman Sachs Group v Commission

(Case T-419/14) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for power cables - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Single and continuous infringement - Imputability of the infringement - Presumption - Error of assessment - Presumption of innocence - Legal certainty - Principle of personal responsibility - Unlimited jurisdiction))

(2018/C 328/41)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: W. Deselaers, J. Koponen and A. Mangiaracina, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Giolito, L. Malferrari, H. van Vliet and J. Norris-Usher, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Prysmian SpA (Milan, Italy) and Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi Srl (Milan) (represented by: C. Tesauro, F. Russo and L. Armati, lawyers)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 2139 final of 2 April 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 [TFEU] and Article 53 of the [EEA] Agreement (Case AT.39610 — Power cables) in so far as it concerns the applicant and, in the alternative, a reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. to bear its own costs and to pay those of the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. to bear its own costs and to pay those of the European Commission;

| 3. | Orders Prysmian SpA and Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi Srl to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Prysmian SpA and Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi Srl to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 282, 25.8.2014.

---
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of General Medical Sciences Special Emphasis Panel; MBRS SCORE Neuroscience & Physiology.                    

*Date:*                         April 2, 2010.                    

*Time:*                         8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         Hyatt Regency, Bethesda, MD 20814.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Brian R Pike, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, Office of Scientific Review, National Institute of General Medical Sciences, National Institutes of Health, 45 Center Drive, Room 3AN18, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-594-3907,                         *pikbr@mail.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.375, Minority Biomedical Research Support; 93.821, Cell Biology and Biophysics Research; 93.859, Pharmacology, Physiology, and Biological Chemistry Research; 93.862, Genetics and Developmental Biology Research; 93.88, Minority Access to Research Careers; 93.96, Special Minority Initiatives, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: February 25, 2010.

Jennifer Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2010-4483 Filed 3-3-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
#### § 812.45 Informing investigators.

A sponsor shall supply all investigators participating in the investigation with copies of the investigational plan and the report of prior investigations of the device.
Consent of Independent Auditors


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements (Form S-8 No. 33-73210, No. 33-66263, No. 33-66241 and
No. 33-66964) pertaining to the 2001 Incentive Compensation Plan,
the 1998 Non-Employee Director Stock Option Plan, the 1992
Non-Employee Director Stock Option Plan, and the 1992 Stock Option
Plan, as amended, of Concepts Direct, Inc. of our report dated
March 1, 2002 (except Note 17, as to which the date is March 28,
2002), with respect to the financial statements and schedule of
Concepts Direct, Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K)
for the year ended December 31, 2001.

/S/ Ernst & Young, LLP
Denver, Colorado
April 1, 2002
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2011-0476 SNPRM

Directorate ID: 2010-NM-247-AD

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

No Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:

If NO, we don’t agree because 
Page 2 of 3

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Date

Branch Manager Date
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AS RESTATED
FOUND ON PAGES 2 OR 3 OF THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE YEAR TO DATE JUNE 30,
1997, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           6,696
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,630
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        411
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                11,551
<PP&E>                                           7,486
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,365
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  21,397
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,135
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            2,686
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        61,639
<OTHER-SE>                                    (55,587)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    21,397
<SALES>                                          8,739
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 8,739
<CGS>                                            4,945
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,945
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,946
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (109)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,864)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,864)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,864)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.40)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.40)
        

</TABLE>
# Supreme Court of Florida

____________ No. SC17

- 1150

____________ GALANTE ROMAR PHILLIPS,

Appellant,

vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. [July 19, 2018]
PER CURIAM.
This case is before the Court on appeal from an order granting in part and denying in part a motion to vacate a judgment of conviction of first

- degree murder
and a sentence of death under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. 1 We hereby dismiss this appeal because the guilt phase issues were waived since they were not briefed by Phillips , and the penalty phase issues were mooted by the new penalty phase ordered by the trial court pursuant to Hurst v. State , 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016) , cert. denied , 137 S. Ct. 2161 ( 2017 )

. Because there will be a new

1 . We have jurisdiction. See a rt. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.- 2

-

penalty phase, it is inconsequential whether Phillips’s trial counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the issue of intellectual disability at the previous penalty phase.
As the S tate argued, Phillips may raise the issue of intellectual disability at the trial court prior to his new penalty phase proceedings. See Godwin v. State , 593 So. 2d 211, 212 (Fla. 1992) (“A case is ‘moot’ when it presents no actual controversy or
when the issues have ceased to exist. ” (citing Black’s Law Dictionary 1008 (6th ed. 1990)) )

. It is so ordered. CANADY, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, POLSTON, LABARGA, and LAWSON, JJ., concur. NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED. An Appeal from the Circuit Court in and for Duval County, Mallory D. Cooper, Judge

- Case No. 162006CF015566AXXXMA Frank Tassone of Tassone, Dreicer, & Hill, LLC, Jacksonville, Florida, for Appellant Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Jennifer A. Donahue, Assist ant Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida, for Appellee
EXHIBIT 32.1

 

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

 

This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and accompanies the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q (the “Form 10-Q”) for the quarter ended June 30, 2007 of Crimson Exploration Inc. (the “Issuer”).  The undersigned hereby certifies that the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer. 

 

| Date:

  | August 14, 2007

                |   |
|---------------|---------------------------------------|--------|
|          | /s/ Allan D. Keel                     |   |
| Name:         | Allan D. Keel                         |   |
| Title:        | President and Chief Executive Officer |   |
|          |                                  |   |
|          |                                  |   |

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Issuer and will be furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission, or its staff, upon request.
# C_2015381EN.01003401.xml

| 16.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 381/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 381/34

---

Order of the General Court of 9 September 2015 — Monster Energy v OHIM (Representation of a peace symbol)

(Case T-633/14) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Period for bringing an action - Point from which time starts to run - Notification of the Board of Appeal’s decision by fax machine - Receipt of the fax - Lateness - No force majeure or unforeseeable circumstances - Manifest inadmissibility))

(2015/C 381/38)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Monster Energy Company (Corona, United States) (represented by: P. Brownlow, Solicitor)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: S. Palmero Cabezas, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 December 2013 (Case R 1285/2013-1) concerning an application for registration as a Community trade mark of a figurative sign representing a peace symbol.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Monster Energy Company shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Monster Energy Company shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 127, 20.4.2015.

1

---
<PAGE>


                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.16


                         SUMMARY OF LOD LEASE AGREEMENT


Lease agreement with Barzilai Investments and Assets Ltd. and Kamim
Investments and Assets Ltd., commencing on November 1, 2000, providing for
monthly rent payments of $63,750, with each rent payment to be paid three
months in advance.

The lease agreement has an initial term of five years. We have two separate two
and one-half year options to extend the lease. The rent for the first option
period will increase 6% from the current rental payment. The rent for the second
option period will increase 7% from the current rental payment.

The interior decoration of the Building will be completed according to our
interior decorator's plans with the landlord paying up to a limit of $1,850,000
plus the tax due on the work. The landlord is obligated to construct a 4,500
square meter building and to deliver the premises to Nur according to specific
timetables.

We pay expenses including as telephone bills, electricity and municipal tax and
are responsible for day-to-day maintenance and insurance of the building. The
landlord pays all government taxes with regard to the ownership of the real
estate.

To guarantee our obligation under the lease, we deposited an autonomic Bank
guaranty with the landlords attorney in the amount of three months rent. Upon a
major default by us, the landlord's attorney will give Nur seven days notice of
exercise. If we continue to default or fail to cure within the seven days, the
landlord will receive the guaranty from his attorney and order the bank to pay
him the guaranteed sum. The bank has no discretion whether to pay or not. This
sum will be attributed to the landlord's damages or loss rising from our
default.

The landlord has legal ownership of all the work done by Nur on the interior of
the premises upon the ending of the lease period (not including detachables).