alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2006108EN.01002003.xml

| 6.5.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 108/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.5.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 108/20

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 March 2006 — Italian Republic v Commission

(Case T-226/04) (1)

1

(Action for annulment - Regulation (EC) No 316/2004 - Common organisation of the market in wine - Protection of traditional terms - Amendment of classification of certain additional traditional indications - Use in labelling of wine originating in third countries - Procedural defect - Principle of proportionality - TRIPs Agreement)

(2006/C 108/36)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: M. Fiorilli, avvocato dello Stato)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: N. Nolin and V. Di Bucci, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

:

Re:

Application for partial annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 316/2004 of 20 February 2004 amending Regulation (EC) No 753/2002 laying down certain rules for applying Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 as regards the description, designation, presentation and protection of certain wine sector products (OJ 2004 L 55, p. 16), in so far as it amends Articles 24, 36 and 37 of Commission Regulation No 753/2002 (OJ 2002 L 118, p. 1), concerning the protection of traditional terms

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action.

| 2. | Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 179 of 10.7.2004

1

---
# C_2005185EN.01001201.xml

| 28.7.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 185/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.7.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 185/12

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.3866 — Sun/StorageTek)

(2005/C 185/04)

(Text with EEA relevance)

| 1. | On 20 July 2005, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking SUN Microsystems Inc. (‘SUN’, USA) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation control of the whole of the undertaking Storage Technology Corporation (‘StorageTek’, USA) by way of purchase of shares. |
| --- | --- |

1.

On 20 July 2005, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking SUN Microsystems Inc. (‘SUN’, USA) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation control of the whole of the undertaking Storage Technology Corporation (‘StorageTek’, USA) by way of purchase of shares.

1

| 2. | The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






  — | for undertaking SUN: Computer systems, network storage systems, support services; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

—

for undertaking SUN: Computer systems, network storage systems, support services;

| — | for undertaking StorageTek: Data storage solutions. |
| --- | --- |

—

for undertaking StorageTek: Data storage solutions.

| 3. | On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. |
| --- | --- |

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.

| 4. | The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
  Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (No (32-2) 296 43 01 or 296 72 44) or by post, under reference number COMP/M.3866 — Sun/StorageTek, to the following address:





  European Commission |
| --- | --- |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| J-70 |
| B-1049 Brussels |

4.

The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (No (32-2) 296 43 01 or 296 72 44) or by post, under reference number COMP/M.3866 — Sun/StorageTek, to the following address:

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

J-70

B-1049 Brussels

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 September 11, 2015

p0908

Order 

Clerk

September 11, 2015

151269 & (21)

ALBION COLLEGE,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 151269

COA: 322917

Calhoun CC: 2013-003308-CZ

STOCKADE BUILDINGS, INC.,

Defendant-Appellant,

and 

R.W. MERCER, CO.,

Defendant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED. 

The application for leave to appeal the February 9, 2015 order of the Court of Appeals is 

considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we 

REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for consideration as on leave granted. We 

further ORDER that trial court proceedings are stayed pending the completion of this 

appeal. On motion of a party or on its own motion, the Court of Appeals may modify, set 

aside, or place conditions on the stay if it appears that the appeal is not being vigorously 

prosecuted or if other appropriate grounds appear. 

We do not retain jurisdiction.
#### RESOLUTE INSURANCE COMPANY v. STATE of Florida.

No. 45288.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 15, 1974.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 8, 1974.

Certiorari denied. 290 So.2d 114.

ADKINS, C. J'., and ROBERTS, Mc-CAIN, DEKLE, and OVERTON, JJ., concur.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsAtomic Oxygen Treatment Technique for Removal of Smoke Damage from PaintingsSoot deposits that can accumulate on surfaces of a painting during a fire can be difficult to clean from some types of paintings without damaging the underlying paint layers. A non-contact technique has been developed which can remove the soot by allowing a gas containing atomic oxygen to flow over the surface and chemically react with the soot to form carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide. The reaction is limited to the surface, so the underlying paint is not touched. The process can be controlled so that the cleaning can be stopped once the paint surface is reached. This paper describes the smoke exposure and cleaning of untreated canvas, acrylic gesso, and sections of an oil painting using this technique. The samples were characterized by optical microscopy and reflectance spectroscopy.Document ID19970010432Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeConference PaperAuthorsRutledge, S. K.*(NASA Lewis Research Center Cleveland, OH United States)*Banks, B. A.*(NASA Lewis Research Center Cleveland, OH United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateJanuary 1, 1997Subject CategoryNonmetallic MaterialsReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.15:107403E-10610NASA-TM-107403Accession Number97N15643Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 632-1A-1EDistribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19970010432.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
Home2019 Treaties and Agreements...France (19-930) – Agreement on Grant Assistance

# 									France (19-930) – Agreement on Grant Assistance							

TIAS

Office of Treaty Affairs

September 30, 2019

Defense: Grant Assistance

Exchange of notes at Paris September 30, 2019; entered into force September 30, 2019.
Download Agreement						 [1 MB]

Tags

DefenseForeign AssistanceFranceTreaties

Back to Top
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
33-93538, 33-41453, 33-48646, 33-77080, 333-4620, 333-31753, 333-59547,
333-80071, 333-36836, 333-62574, and 333-92368 on Forms S-8 of Somanetics
Corporation of our report dated January 24, 2003, appearing in this Annual
Report on Form 10-K of Somanetics Corporation for the year ended November 30,
2002.

/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
-------------------------

Detroit, Michigan
February 4, 2003
# C_2006048EN.01000402.xml

| 25.2.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.2.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/4

---

Judgment of the Court

(First Chamber)

of 15 December 2005

in Case C-26/04: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 76/160/EEC - Quality of bathing waters - Designation as bathing areas - Directive 79/923/EEC - Quality of shellfish waters - Establishment of a pollution reduction programme)

(2006/C 48/08)

Language of the case: Spanish

In Case C-26/04, action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 27 January 2004, Commission of the European Communities (Agent: M.G.Valero Jordana) v Kingdom of Spain (Agent: M.E. Braquehais Conesa) — the Court (First Chamber), composed of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, K. Schiemann, N. Colneric, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur) and E. Levits, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 15 December 2005, in which it:

Commission of the European Communities

Kingdom of Spain

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to adopt a pollution reduction programme for the shellfish waters of the Ría de Vigo, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5 of Council Directive 79/923/EEC of 30 October 1979 on the quality required of shellfish waters; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt a pollution reduction programme for the shellfish waters of the Ría de Vigo, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5 of Council Directive 79/923/EEC of 30 October 1979 on the quality required of shellfish waters;

| 2. | Dismisses the remainder of the action; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the remainder of the action;

| 3. | Orders the Commission of the European Communities and the Kingdom of Spain to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Commission of the European Communities and the Kingdom of Spain to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 71 of 20.03.2004.

1

---
#### Cramer *v.*State.

4655

238 S. W. 2d 482

Opinion delivered April 2, 1951.

Rehearing denied April 30, 1951.

*623
      *John G. Sheffield,*for appellant.

*Ihe Murry,*Attorney General and *R. Ben Allen,*Special Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

George Eose Smith, J.

Josh Cramer appeals from a judgment sentencing him to fifteen years’ imprisonment for having murdered Harold Hurt, the husband of Cramer’s stepdaughter. The only issue presented to us is whether there is evidence to support the jury’s finding that Cramer is guilty of murder in the second degree. "We find the testimony amply sufficient.

Cramer admits that he killed Hurt with a shotgun on April 8, 1950, hut contends that he acted in self-defense. On this question the testimony is in conflict. For more than a year the Cramers and the Hurts had lived together in a small dwelling. There was animosity between Cramer and Hurt, the testimony indicating that each had threatened to kill the other. According to Agnes Hurt, the widow of the deceased, she and her husband had a mild quarrel on the night that he was killed. Agnes’ mother, Effie Cramer, “hutted in” and was pushed by Hurt. Mrs. Cramer called to her husband, who came in with a shotgun and shot Hurt while he was unarmed and in the act of lighting a cigarette. It is undisputed that Cramer directed his wife to take the responsibility for the crime and that she did confess guilt. After Mrs. Cramer had been in jail for several days Cramer admitted that he had killed Hurt. At the trial both Cramer and his wife testified that Hurt was threatening or beating Cramer with a club when the shooting occurred.

Agnes Hurt’s testimony that the killing was unprovoked is plainly substantial evidence supporting the verdict. The jury evidently accepted Mrs. Hurt’s version rather than the Cramers’, perhaps because Cramer is the accused and his wife is manifestly under his domination. It is argued that malice was not proved, hut we think it unnecessary to cite our numerous cases holding that the law implies malice when the killing is with a deadly weapon and without provocation.

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-1996
<CASH>                                             235
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  158,780
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                       5758
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               221,603
<PP&E>                                         105,452
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,116,504
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,043,176
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       380,146
<OTHER-SE>                                  12,830,427
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,116,504
<SALES>                                        116,070
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               116,070
<CGS>                                          108,791
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  178,178
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               169,830
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                227,340
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       6
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   227,340
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.02)
AMERICAN BANCORPORATION



Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 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 on Form 10-Q of
AmericanWest Bancorporation (the Corporation) for the quarter ending September 30, 2003 as filed on the date hereof (the Report), I, Wes Colley, the Chief Executive Officer, hereby 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 result of operations of the Corporation.
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: November 12, 2003



By

/s/    Wes ColleyWes Colley President and Chief Executive Officer
## Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

In re Ray Allen Neil

No. 06

- 19

- 00187

- CR Original Mandamus Proceeding

Memorandum Opinion delivered by Justice

Stevens, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice

Burgess participating.

As stated in the Co urt’s opinion of this date, we find that Relator is not entitled to the relief

sought. Therefore, we deny the petition

.

RENDERED SEPTEMBER 12, 2019

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
No. 99-8969.

#### Clyburn *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
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 Annual Report of Union Bankshares, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), the undersigned Chief Financial Officer of the Company hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. [SECTION]1350, as adopted pursuant to
[SECTION]906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of her
knowledge;  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 as of and for the
periods covered in the Report.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to Union Bankshares, Inc. and will be retained by Union
Bankshares, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.



/s/ Marsha A. Mongeon
---------------------
Marsha A. Mongeon
Chief Financial Officer


March 30, 2005


<PAGE>
#### ELIZABETH ROTHER, RESPONDENT, v. MERCHANTS REFRIGERATING CO., APPELLANT.

Submitted May 26, 1939

Decided September 22, 1939.

For the appellant, *Reginald Spell*and *Wilbur A. Stevens.*

For the respondent, *Ziegler & Brenner.*

Per Curiam.

The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered by Mr. Justice Perskie in the Supreme Court.

*For affvrmaoe*— The Chancelloe, Chief Justice, Case, Bodine, Donges, Hehee, Poetee, Hetfield, Deae, Wells, WolfsKeil, Raffeety, Hague, JJ. 13.

*For reversal*— None.
# C_2006120EN.01000101.xml

| 20.5.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 120/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.5.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 120/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

19 May 2006

(2006/C 120/01)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2767 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 142,64 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4553 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,6801 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,3705 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5561 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 91,15 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,805 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,575 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 28,288 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 263,65 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6961 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4293 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,9422 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 3,5215 |
| SIT | Slovenian tolar | 239,61 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 37,673 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,8878 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6787 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4321 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,9014 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 2,0563 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,0264 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 208,08 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 8,2031 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 10,2328 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,273 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 11 758,41 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,6191 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 67,205 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 34,527 |
| THB | Thai baht | 48,753 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2767

JPY

Japanese yen

142,64

DKK

Danish krone

7,4553

GBP

Pound sterling

0,6801

SEK

Swedish krona

9,3705

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5561

ISK

Iceland króna

91,15

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,805

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,575

CZK

Czech koruna

28,288

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

263,65

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6961

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4293

PLN

Polish zloty

3,9422

RON

Romanian leu

3,5215

SIT

Slovenian tolar

239,61

SKK

Slovak koruna

37,673

TRY

Turkish lira

1,8878

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6787

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4321

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,9014

NZD

New Zealand dollar

2,0563

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,0264

KRW

South Korean won

1 208,08

ZAR

South African rand

8,2031

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

10,2328

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,273

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

11 758,41

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,6191

PHP

Philippine peso

67,205

RUB

Russian rouble

34,527

THB

Thai baht

48,753

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---