alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2005155EN.01001402.xml

| 25.6.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.6.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/14

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 21 April 2005

in Case T-28/03 Holcim (Deutschland) AG v Commission of the European Communities (1)

1

(Article 85 of the EC Treaty (now Article 81 EC) - Compliance with a judgment of the Court of First Instance - Reimbursement of bank guarantee charges - Non-contractual liability of the Community)

(2005/C 155/28)

Language of the case: German

In Case T-28/03: Holcim (Deutschland) AG, formerly Alsen AG, established in Hamburg (Germany), represented initially by F. Wiemer, and K. Moosecker, then by F. Wiemer, P. Niggemann and B. Menkhaus, lawyers, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: R. Lyal and W. Mölls, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — Application for compensation in the form of reimbursement of the bank guarantee charges incurred by the applicant following a fine fixed by Commission Decision 94/815/EC of 30 November 1994 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EC Treaty (Cases IV/33.126 and 33.322 — Cement) (OJ 1994 L 343, p. 1), which was annulled by the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 March 2000 in Joined Cases T-25/95, T-26/95, T-30/95 to T-32/95, T-34/95 to T-39/95, T-42/95 to T-46/95, T-48/95, T-50/95 to T-65/95, T-68/95 to T-71/95, T-87/95, T-88/95, T-103/95 and T-104/95 Cimenteries CBR and Others v Commission (‘Cement’) [2000] ECR II-491 — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of J. Azizi, President, M. Jaeger and F. Dehousse, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, gave a judgment on 21 April 2005, in which it:

Cimenteries CBR and Others

Commission

| 1. | Dismisses the action as inadmissible in so far as it is based on Article 233 EC; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action as inadmissible in so far as it is based on Article 233 EC;

| 2. | Dismisses as inadmissible the alternative request that the action, in so far as it is based on Article 233 EC, be interpreted as being an action for annulment or for failure to act; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses as inadmissible the alternative request that the action, in so far as it is based on Article 233 EC, be interpreted as being an action for annulment or for failure to act;

| 3. | Dismisses as inadmissible the claim for damages, as regards the bank guarantee charges incurred by the applicant before 31 January 1998; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Dismisses as inadmissible the claim for damages, as regards the bank guarantee charges incurred by the applicant before 31 January 1998;

| 4. | Dismisses the remainder of the application as unfounded; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Dismisses the remainder of the application as unfounded;

| 5. | Orders the applicant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 124 of 24.5.2003.

1

---
HomeOffice of the Special Envoy for Holocaust Issues...Office of the Special Envoy for Holocaust Issues  Releases

# Office of the Special Envoy for Holocaust Issues Releases

123 items

        -    Press Statement  		Commemorating the Day of Holocaust Remembrance	  Antony J. BlinkenApril 28, 2022 
        -    Remarks  		Why Do Holocaust Issues Matter for Foreign Policy?	  Ellen GermainMarch 23, 2022Yashek Memorial Lecture at Albright CollegeReading, Pennsylvania 
        -    Remarks  		Secretary Antony J. Blinken on the Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity in Burma	  Antony J. BlinkenMarch 21, 2022Holocaust Memorial MuseumWashington, D.C. 
        -    Interview  		Special Envoy for Holocaust Issues Ellen Germain to the Athens News Agency: “We Seek Justice for the Victims of the Holocaust”  	  Ellen GermainFebruary 27, 2022Interview with Sofia Mandilara The Jewish Museum of Greece, Athens, Greece 
        -    Remarks  		Why Confronting Holocaust Distortion and Denial Matters	  Ellen GermainJanuary 31, 2022Virtual Lecture for the International Holocaust Remembrance Day Commemoration, Hosted by the CHAJ Cultural OrganizationThe Hague, Netherlands 
        -    White House Release  		Statement by President Biden on International Holocaust Remembrance Day	  January 27, 2022 
        -    Video Remarks  		International Holocaust Remembrance Day	  Antony J. BlinkenJanuary 27, 2022Recorded on January 25, 2022 
        -    Video Remarks  		Holocaust Survivors’ Legacies and Preserving the Past	  January 25, 2022 
        -    Remarks  		Secretary Antony J. Blinken at the Fran Eizenstat and Eizenstat Family Memorial Lecture Series	  Antony J. BlinkenJanuary 24, 2022Washington, D.C. 
        -    Media Note  		Appointment of Ambassador Stuart E. Eizenstat as Special Adviser on Holocaust Issues	  December 27, 2021 

previous page123456…13next page

Back to Top
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 164 (Wednesday, August 26, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 43129]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-20505]


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

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Notices

AGENCY: Federal Election Commission.

Date and Time: Tuesday, August 25, 2009, at 10 a.m.

Place: 999 E Street, NW., Washington, DC (Ninth Floor).

Status: This hearing will be open to the public.

Matter Before the Commission: Web site and Internet Communications 
Improvement Initiative.

Date and Time: Tuesday, August 25, 2009, 2:30 p.m. and its Continuation 
on Wednesday, August 26, 2009, 10 a.m.

Place: 999 E Street, NW., Washington, DC (Ninth Floor).

Status: These meetings will be closed to the public.

Items to be Discussed: Compliance matters pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 437g.
    Audits conducted pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 437g, Sec.  438(b), and Title 
26, U.S.C.
    Matters concerning participation in civil actions or proceedings or 
arbitration.
    Internal personnel rules and procedures or matters affecting a 
particular employee.

Date and Time: Thursday, August 27, 2009, at 10 a.m.

Place: 999 E Street, NW., Washington, DC (Ninth Floor).

Status: This meeting will be open to the public.

Items to be Discussed: Correction and Approval of Minutes.
    Draft Advisory Opinion 2009-14: Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC and Sterling 
Truck Corporation by Jan Witold Baran, Esq. and Caleb Burns, Esq.
    Draft Advisory Opinion 2009-19: Club for Growth, by David Keating, 
Executive Director.
    Draft Advisory Opinion 2009-20: Visclosky for Congress, by 
Treasurer Michael C. Malczewski.
    Draft Advisory Opinion 2009-21: West Virginia Secretary of State, 
by Timothy G. Leach, Assistant General Counsel, Office of the Secretary 
of State.
    Future Meeting Dates.
    Management and Administrative Matters.
    Individuals who plan to attend and require special assistance, such 
as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, 
should contact Mary Dove, Commission Secretary, at (202) 694-1040, at 
least 72 hours prior to the hearing date.

PERSON TO CONTACT FOR INFORMATION: Judith Ingram, Press Officer. 
Telephone: (202) 694-1220.

Mary W. Dove,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. E9-20505 Filed 8-25-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6715-01-M
HomePalau

# Palau

78 items

        -    Press Statement  		Palau National Day	  Antony J. BlinkenSeptember 30, 2022 
        -    Remarks  		Secretary Antony J. Blinken and President of the Republic of the Marshall Islands David Kabua, President of the Federated States of Micronesia David Panuelo, and President of Palau Surangel Whipps Jr. Before their Meeting	  Antony J. BlinkenSeptember 29, 2022Benjamin Franklin RoomWashington, D.C. 
        -    DipNote: Military and Security  		Investing in the Future of the Pacific: U.S. Assistance Continues to Address WWII-era Explosive Hazards	  September 29, 2022 
        -    DipNote: Military and Security  		Governance of the Seas: Assistance to Pacific Island Partners	  September 28, 2022 
        -    Bilateral Relations Fact Sheet  		U.S. Relations With Palau	  August 24, 2022 
        -    Report  		2022 Investment Climate Statements: Palau	  July 28, 2022 
        -    Report  		2022 Trafficking in Persons Report: Palau	  July 19, 2022 
        -    DipNote  		The Big Blue Pacific Continent Is a Force	  Monica MedinaJuly 17, 2022 
        -    DipNote  		Our Ocean 2022: Working Together to Protect Our Ocean’s Health	  July 5, 2022 
        -    Report  		2021 Report on International Religious Freedom: Palau	  June 2, 2022 

previous page12345…8next page

Back to Top
#### Larry WILSON et al., Appellants, v. MASSACHUSETTS INDEMNITY AND LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Massachusetts Corporation, Appellee.

No. 78-351.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 2, 1979.

Aaron H. Barken, Coral Gables, for appellants.

Kelly, Black, Black, Wright & Earle and William G. Earle, Miami, for appellee.

. Before PEARSON, BARKDULL and HUBBART, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See: *Capelouto v. Orkin Exterminating Co. of Florida,*183 So.2d 532 (Fla.1966); *Uni-Chem Corp. of Florida, Inc. v. Maret,*338 So.2d 885 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); § 542.12(2), Fla.Stat. (1977).
#### § 558.300 Applicability of definitions.

The definitions in this subpart apply throughout the entire part.
#### Charles Ellis v. State of Arkansas

5388

434 S.W. 2d 275

Opinion Delivered December 2, 1968

*Fred E. Briner*for appellant.

*Joe Purcell,*Atty. Gen.; *Don Langston,*Asst. Atty. Gen. for appellee.

Paul Ward, Justice.

This is a Criminal Procedure Bule No. 1 proceeding wherein Charles Ellis (appellant) contends his constitutional rights were violated when he was sentenced to life imprisonment in the penitentiary.

*741On September 1, 1958 appellant was charged with murder in the first degree for slaying A. *Z.*Cromwell on August 26, 1958. Upon arraignment he pleaded guilty. A jury, upon hearing testimony, fixed his punishment as previously stated, and he began serving the sentence.

Approximately eight years later appellant filed a petition in circuit court of Saline County (where he had been sentenced) alleging his constitutional rights had been violated. His prayer was for “immediate freedom”.

On March 11, 1968 the court appointed attorney Fred Briner to represent appellant, and a hearing was held on June 26,1968. At that time the criminal docket sheet of the 1958 trial was introduced in evidence, and appellant took the stand and testified at length.

At the close of the hearing the trial court denied the relief prayed for, and this appeal follows.

We have carefully examined each of the grounds urged here by appellant to show a violation of his constitutional rights, but find no merit in any of them.

The docket sheet showing the proceedings at the original trial in 1958 was introduced in evidence and it reveals: Appellant was represented by Attorney Wendell Hall; He entered a plea of guilty on December 8, 1958; On the same day he was found guilty by a jury, he waived time for pronouncement of judgment, was sentenced to life imprisonment. No other evidence was presented to the court except the testimony given by appellant.

The only grounds urged here by appellant for a reversal are those mentioned below.

A. Appellant testified that he was apprehended in New Mexico and returned to Arkansas by Lt. McDon*742aid without an extradition hearing or waiver. We see no merit in this contention because this point was not raised when he pleaded guilty in 1958 after conferring with his attorney. Moreover, appellant does not contend he requested such hearing.

B. Here, it is contended his constitutional rights were violated because he “was not arraigned before a magistrate for a period in excess of thirty days after his arrest.” Again it is pointed out that no such objection was raised in 1958.

C. Finally, appellant contends his constitutional right was violated when he (allegedly) admitted the killing without having been warned of his right to keep silent (as required by the *Miranda*decision). A sufficient answer to this contention is that the *Miranda*decision was announced some eight years after appellant was convicted, and that it is not retroactive. See: *James W. Moore*v. *State,*241 Ark. 745 (p.747), 410 S.W. 2d 399.

Finding no reversible error, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 74 (Thursday, April 17, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 21833]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-08619]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Twenty Fifth Meeting: RTCA Special Committee 213, Enhanced Flight 
Vision Systems/Synthetic Vision Systems (EFVS/SVS)

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of 
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Meeting Notice of RTCA Special Committee 213, Enhanced Flight 
Vision Systems/Synthetic Vision Systems (EFVS/SVS).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of the 
twenty fifth meeting of the RTCA Special Committee 213, Enhanced Flight 
Vision Systems/Synthetic Vision Systems (EFVS/SVS).

DATES: The meeting will be held May 13-15, 2014 from 10:00 a.m.-5:00 
p.m. on May 13th and 9:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m. on May 14th and 15th.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at Airbus in France, Site de Saint 
Martin du Touch, 316 route de Bayonne, 31060 Toulouse Cedex 9.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim Etherington, 
tjetheri@rockwellcollins.com, (319) 295-5233, Patrick Krohn, 
pkrohn@uasc.com, (425) 602-1375 and The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th 
Street NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036, or by telephone at (202) 
330-0652/(202) 833-9339, fax at (202) 833-9434, or Web site at http://www.rtca.org. Additional contact information: please contact Patrick 
Krohn, pkrohn@uasc.com, telephone (425) 602-1375 or mobile at (425) 
829-1996. RTCA contact is Jennifer Iverson, jiverson@rtca.org, (202) 
330-0662.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is 
hereby given for a meeting of Special Committee 213. The agenda will 
include the following:

May 13

Plenary Discussion (Sign in at 9:00 a.m.)

     Introductions and administrative items.
     Review and approve minutes from last full plenary meeting.
     Review of terms of reference.
     Status of DO-342A and DO-315C Drafts.
     Industry updates.
     WG-1 DO-315C draft review.

May 14

Plenary Discussion

     WG-1 DO-315C draft review.

May 15

Plenary Discussion

     WG-1 DO-315C draft review.
     WG-2 DO-342A draft review (time permitting).
     Administrative items (new meeting location/dates, action 
items etc.).
     Adjourn.
    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space 
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public 
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present 
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in 
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may 
present a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 9, 2014.
Paige Williams,
Management Analyst, NextGen, Business Operations Group, Federal 
Aviation Administration.
[FR Doc. 2014-08619 Filed 4-16-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
```
Exhibit 10.224

VALENS OFFSHORE SPV II, CORP.

c/o Valens Capital Management, LLC

335 Madison Avenue

New York, New
York 10017

December 10, 2007

Biovest International, Inc.

377 Plantation Street Worcester, MA 01605

Attention: Chief Financial Officer

Gentlemen:

Reference is made to the Royalty Agreement dated as of December 10, 2007 (the Royalty
Agreement), by and between Biovest International, Inc. (the Company) and Valens Offshore SPV II, Corp. (Valens Offshore). Capitalized terms used herein that are not defined shall have the meaning given
to them in the Royalty Agreement.

Valens Offshore and the Company desire to amend the royalty percentage set forth in the
Royalty Agreement on the terms and conditions set forth below.

In consideration of Valens Offshores agreement to
continue to provide financial accommodations to the Company and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto hereby agree that: Section 4.1 of the Royalty Agreement
is hereby amended by replacing the phrase two and twelve one hundredths (2.12%) percent with the phrase two and ninety-six one-hundredths percent (2.96%) in the first sentence thereof.

Except as specifically amended herein, the Royalty Agreement shall remain in full force and effect, and is hereby ratified and confirmed.
The execution, delivery and effectiveness of this letter agreement shall not operate as a waiver of any right, power or remedy of Valens Offshore, nor constitute a waiver of any provision of the Royalty Agreement.

This letter agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns
and shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of New York.



[Remainder of the page intentionally blank.]



---

This letter agreement may be executed by the parties hereto in one or more counterparts,
each of which shall be deemed an original and all of which when taken together shall constitute one and the same agreement. Any signature delivered by a party by facsimile or electronic transmission shall be deemed to be an original signature
hereto.



VALENS OFFSHORE SPV II, CORP.By:

Valens Capital Management, LLC, itsinvestment managerBy:

/s/ Patrick ReganName: Patrick Regan Title: Authorized Signatory




|                            |  |                                                 
|--------------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------
|CONSENTED AND AGREED TO:   
|                           
|BIOVEST INTERNATIONAL, INC.
|                            | 
|By:                         |  | /s/ Steven Arikian                              
|                            |  | Name: Steven Arikian, M.D. Title: Chairman & CEO
#### Charles Clark et ux, complainants-respondents, *v.*Le Roy Badgley et ux., defendants-appellants.

[Submitted May term, 1929

Decided February 3d, 1930.]

*Messrs. Harley, Cox & W alburg,*for the defendants-appellants.

*535
      *Mr. Joseph Zemel,*for the complainants-respondents.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Black, *J.*

The bill of complaint was filed in this case, in the court of chancery, to recover the sum of five hundred ($500) dollars, the down-money paid under a real estate contract, dated July 12th, 1928, covering premises known as No. 267 Amherst street, in the city of East Orange, and in addition thereto, the sum of one hundred forty-seven dollars and forty-one cents ($147.41); expenses incurred in examining the title. The bill also prays, that said sums, when found to be due, be impressed as a lien upon the lands and premises.

In the case of *Bailey*v. *B. Holding Co., 104 N. J. Eq. 241,*this court held, a suit to recover the deposit and search fees made by the buyer against the seller, under a written contract to sell land, is not cognizable by the court of chancery. The court of chancery is without jurisdiction to hear and determine the controversy. The question litigated is a pure legal question, viz., the breach of a contract cognizable by the common law courts. That case controls this controversy.

The learned vice-chancellor, who heard the case and advised the decree appealed from, points out that the prayer in the bill of complaint for a lien on the land marks a legal distinction between that case, and the case under discussion. But this is not so. It is a distinction without a legal or substantal difference. The fact that the court of chancery is asked to declare a lien on the land does not differentiate the case in a legal aspect, from the cited case. The judgments of the common law courts are liens upon lands. The court of chancery could be given jurisdiction in any contract case by simply praying for a lien. This is manifestly unsound.

The decree of the court of chancery is reversed, on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction to hear and determine the controversy.

*536
      *For affirmance*— Rone.

*For reversal*— The Chiee-Justice, Parker, Kalisch, Black, Campbell, Lloyd, Case, Bodine, Van Buskirk, MoGlennon, Kays, Heteield, Dear, JJ. 13.
# Liechtenstein

34 items

        -    Readout  		Deputy Secretary Campbell’s Meeting with Liechtenstein Foreign Minister Hasler	  March 13, 2024 
        -    Press Statement  		Liechtenstein’s National Day	  Antony J. BlinkenAugust 15, 2023 
        -    Report  		2022 Report on International Religious Freedom: Liechtenstein	  May 15, 2023 
        -    Report  		2022 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: 	  March 20, 2023 
        -    Readout  		Deputy Secretary Sherman’s Meeting with Liechtenstein Foreign Minister Hasler	  November 16, 2022 
        -    Press Statement  		Liechtenstein’s National Day	  Antony J. BlinkenAugust 15, 2022 
        -    Report  		2022 Investment Climate Statements: Switzerland and Liechtenstein	  July 28, 2022 
        -    Report  		2021 Report on International Religious Freedom: Liechtenstein	  June 2, 2022 
        -    Report  		2021 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Liechtenstein	  April 12, 2022 
        -    Readout  		Deputy Secretary Sherman’s Call with Liechtenstein Foreign Minister Hasler	  February 23, 2022 

1234next page

Back to Top
- Home
- Cases Filed Against the Dominican Republic
- Cases Filed Against Guatemala
- Cases Filed Against Nicaragua
- Cases Filed Against the United States

HomeCAFTA-DR Investor-State Arbitrations...Cases Filed Against Nicaragua

# 									Cases Filed Against Nicaragua							

Office of the Legal Adviser

        - Lopez-Goyne et al. v. Nicaragua

Tags

ArbitrationFree Trade AgreementsLegal AdviserNicaraguaNorth American Free Trade Agreement

Back to Top
#### Susan M. GUE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-1036.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

July 3, 1974.

Robert E. Jagger, Public Defender, and Paul C. Scherer, Asst. Public Defender, Clearwater, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Robert J. Landry, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was charged originally with possession of marijuana in an amount constituting a misdemeanor. The state nolle prossed this charge and filed a felony charge for possession of narcotics paraphernalia, but failed to bring appellant to trial within 180 days of the date when appellant was “taken into custody as a result of the conduct or criminal episode giving rise to the crime charged.” CrPR 3.-191(a)(1), 33 F.S.A. We find nothing in this record to constitute an exception to the speedy trial rule. While it is true, as the trial judge pointed out, that at arraignment the defendant might have called to the state’s attention that the case was set for trial beyond the 180 days, we find nothing in the rule which places the burden of compliance elsewhere than on the state. There being no waiver or other circumstances justifying extension, denial of the motion to discharge was error. *See*State ex rel. Gutierrez v. Baker, Fla.1973, 276 So.2d 470; cf. State ex rel. Green v. Patterson, Fla.App.2d 1973, 279 So.2d 362, in *136which the delay was attributable to the accused, a circumstance not shown on this record.

Reversed.

MANN, C. J., and McNULTY and GRIMES, JJ., concur.