alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

AH/Research

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DAVID RUCKER,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 v.

JIM HAMLET,

 Respondent - Appellee.

No. 07-16748

D.C. No. CV-03-01715-LKK

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Lawrence K. Karlton, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 16, 2010** 

Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner David Rucker appeals from the district court’s

denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition challenging his “Three-Strikes”

FILED

MAR 03 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
AH/Research 07-16748

conviction and sentence for driving under the influence. We have jurisdiction

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

Rucker contends that his sentence of twenty-five years to life constitutes

cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. Given the

circumstances of the offense and of Rucker’s prior convictions, the state court did

not unreasonably apply clearly established federal law. See 28 U.S.C. §

2254(d)(1); Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 72-73 (2003); see also Rios v.

Garcia, 390 F.3d 1082, 1086 (9th Cir. 2004) (upholding “Three Strikes” sentence

of twenty-five years to life for felony petty theft where petitioner struggled with

loss prevention officer and prior robbery strikes involved threat of violence).

Rucker also contends that appellate counsel was ineffective for refusing to

raise the Eighth Amendment issue on direct appeal. The record reflects that

counsel’s performance was not deficient, and that Rucker cannot demonstrate

prejudice because the claim lacked merit. See Jones v. Smith, 231 F.3d 1227, 1239

n.8 (9th Cir. 2000); Wildman v. Johnson, 261 F.3d 832, 840 (9th Cir. 2001).

Rucker last contends that the state trial court violated his due process rights

when it gave CALJIC 17.41.1, the jury nullification instruction. As Rucker

concedes, however, this claim is foreclosed by Brewer v. Hall, 378 F.3d 952, 957

(9th Cir. 2004) (affirming district court’s denial because there is no clearly
AH/Research 07-16748

established federal law holding that CALJIC 17.41.1 violates an existing

constitutional right).

AFFIRMED.
----

Initiation of proceedings

(Case COMP/M.3923 — AMI/Eurotecnica)

(2005/C 265/04)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 18 October 2005, the Commission decided to initiate proceedings in the abovementioned case after finding that the notified concentration raises serious doubts as to its compatibility with the common market. The initiation of proceedings opens a second phase investigation with regard to the notified concentration. The decision is based on Article 6(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004.

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

In order to be fully taken into account in the procedure, observations should reach the Commission not later than 15 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 COMP/M.3923 — AMI/Eurotecnica, to the following address:

----
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, June 06, 2016. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, June 06, 2016 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A16I0206. CITY OF HINESVILLE, GEORGIA v. NANCY PARKER O'NEAL et al. .
Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: 2014V607
No. 99-9618.

#### Lichter *v.*MCI WorldCom Communications, Inc.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice O’Connor took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Honouliuli special resourcestudy.**
 
Newsletter: 01
 
SuDoc Number:I 29.58/4:H 75/2/
Item Number:0649-A (online)
CGP systemNumber:000990463
 
June 26, 2019
II

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3161

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 18, 1996

Received

AN ACT

To authorize the extension of nondiscriminatory treatment

(most-favored-nation treatment) to the products of Romania.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

4 The Congress finds that—
2

HR 3161 RDS

1 (1) Romania emerged from years of brutal

2 Communist dictatorship in 1989 and approved a

3 new Constitution and elected a Parliament by 1991,

4 laying the foundation for a modern parliamentary

5 democracy charged with guaranteeing fundamental

6 human rights, freedom of expression, and respect for

7 private property;

8 (2) local elections, parliamentary elections, and

9 presidential elections have been held in Romania,

10 and 1996 will mark the second nationwide presi11 dential elections under the new Constitution;

12 (3) Romania has undertaken significant eco13 nomic reforms, including the establishment of a two14 tier banking system, the introduction of a modern

15 tax system, the freeing of most prices and elimi16 nation of most subsidies, the adoption of a tariff17 based trade regime, and the rapid privatization of

18 industry and nearly all agriculture;

19 (4) Romania concluded a bilateral investment

20 treaty with the United States in 1993, and both

21 United States investment in Romania and bilateral

22 trade are increasing rapidly;

23 (5) Romania has received most-favored-nation

24 treatment since 1993, and has been found by the

25 President to be in full compliance with the freedom
3

HR 3161 RDS

1 of emigration requirements under title IV of the

2 Trade Act of 1974;

3 (6) Romania is a member of the World Trade

4 Organization and extension of unconditional most-fa5 vored-nation treatment to the products of Romania

6 would enable the United States to avail itself of all

7 rights under the World Trade Organization with re8 spect to Romania; and

9 (7) Romania has demonstrated a strong desire

10 to build friendly relationships and to cooperate fully

11 with the United States on trade matters.

12 SEC. 2. TERMINATION OF APPLICATION OF TITLE IV OF

13 THE TRADE ACT OF 1974 TO ROMANIA.

14 (a) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATIONS AND EXTEN15 SION OF NONDISCRIMINATORY TREATMENT.—Notwith16 standing any provision of title IV of the Trade Act of 1974

17 (19 U.S.C. 2431 et seq.), the President may—

18 (1) determine that such title should no longer

19 apply to Romania; and

20 (2) after making a determination under para21 graph (1), proclaim the extension of nondiscrim22 inatory treatment (most-favored-nation treatment)

23 to the products of that country.

24 (b) TERMINATION OF APPLICATION OF TITLE IV.—

25 On and after the effective date of the extension under sub-
4

HR 3161 RDS

1 section (a)(2) of nondiscriminatory treatment to the prod2 ucts of Romania, title IV of the Trade Act of 1974 shall

3 cease to apply to that country.

Passed the House of Representatives July 17, 1996.

Attest: ROBIN H. CARLE,

Clerk.

By LINDA NAVE,

Deputy Clerk.
Exhibit 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly report of Capital Gold Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended April 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Gifford
A. Dieterle, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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
Company.


                                                   /s/ Gifford A. Dieterle
                                                   --------------------------
                                                   Gifford A. Dieterle
                                                   Chief Financial Officer
                                                   June 18, 2004
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3319

To require that the United States promptly sue for recovery of costs and

damages for the cleanup of the Stepan Property Superfund Site in

Bergen County, New Jersey.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 24, 1996

Mr. ZIMMER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To require that the United States promptly sue for recovery

of costs and damages for the cleanup of the Stepan

Property Superfund Site in Bergen County, New Jersey.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. RECOVERY OF CLEANUP COSTS FOR STEPAN

4 SITE.

5 (a) PROMPT COST RECOVERY REQUIRED.—Within

6 90 days after the enactment of this Act, the President,

7 acting through the Attorney General of the United States,

8 shall bring an action in the appropriate United States Dis9 trict Court under section 107 of the Comprehensive Envi-
2

•HR 3319 IH

1 ronmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of

2 1980 (‘‘Superfund’’) against all persons who are poten3 tially responsible parties with respect to the Stepan Prop4 erty Superfund Site in Bergen County, New Jersey

5 (Superfund Site No. NJD980529762) to recover all costs

6 of removal or remedial action incurred by the United

7 States and all damages for injury to, or destruction of,

8 or loss of natural resources that are recoverable by the

9 United States under that section.

10 (b) EXISTING CLEANUP ACTIVITIES.—Nothing in

11 subsection (a) shall be construed to authorize or permit

12 the cessation, delay, or slowing of any response or reme13 dial action at the site referred to in subsection (a) that

14 would otherwise take place if this Act has not been en15 acted.

Æ
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21
- 7182

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. STERLING WHITAKER , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Wilmington

. Terrence W. Boyle , District Judge. ( 7:19

- cr - 00129

- BO

- 2 ; 7:21

- cv - 00033

- BO )

Submitted : December 21, 2021 Decided: December 27, 2021

Before KING and QUATTLEBAUM , Circuit Judges , and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Sterling Whitaker, Appellant Pro Se. David A. Bragdon, Assistant U nited States Attorney , OFFICE OF TH E UNITED STATES ATTORNEY , Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 21-7182 Doc: 6 Filed: 12/27/2021 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Sterling Whitaker seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 225 5 motio n . The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)( B ). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating tha t reasonable jurists c ould find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims d ebatable or wrong. See Buck v.
Davis , 137 S. Ct. 759, 773

- 74 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler , 565 U.S. 134, 140

- 41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473,
484 (2000))

. Limiting our review of the record to the issues raised in Whitaker ’s informal brief ,

we conclude that Whitaker has not made the requisite showing. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); see also Jackson v. Lightsey , 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) ( “ The informal brief is an
im portant document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief. ” )

. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED USCA4 Appeal: 21-7182 Doc: 6 Filed: 12/27/2021 Pg: 2 of 2
V

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3388

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the coastwise

trade for the vessel HOPTOAD.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 1, 1996

Mr. GEJDENSON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

A BILL

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a

certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the coastwise trade for the vessel

HOPTOAD.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That notwithstanding section 27 of the Merchant Marine

4 Act, 1920 (46 App. U.S.C. 883), section 8 of the Act of

5 June 19, 1886 (46 App. U.S.C. 289), and section 12106

6 of title 46, United States Code, the Secretary of Transpor7 tation may issue a certificate of documentation with ap8 propriate endorsement for employment in the coastwise
2

•HR 3388 IH

1 trade for the vessel HOPTOAD (hull identification num2 ber 528162 NET 12).

Æ
OFFICE OF THE AlTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

lonorable I&n Ahap 

QooutiTo seorotarpDiroetor 

stste Comdmsioa ior the Bliad 

~aod om8e 

Aumun, SaKas 

out in the appropriation 

to matidy 

rtkfamnoe to 

the national 

Ihate Bill lo. 832, Chapter loo, 48th Legislature, 

Beylu sesmloa -- the General Appropriation6 Aat ?or the 

BxooutlTe an4 A4nlnistr8tiTe 4apartBlQt~ - Ilam 1 to wa, 

inolulire, rith rupeot to purpose is as tollew8c 
Ilonorabla La Alaup - page ¶ 

Baginning -w 

8aptwar 1, August 31, 

1942 IQ46 

2,400.00 t 

uc-1Yrms 

81. Esteoutire 2eoratary-Direator Q 

2. Secretary to Baautira 

8aorat~~-Dlroator.,.,.... 

1”: 

strtiatioian-bookkaepar..... 

Cl18 and Rboox’d Clark..,.... 

6. Plaobmbnt Agtult . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

6. Plooamnt As-t......,,...,. 

7. suparTiaor Of Induatrtba and 

fioms taachara and Intamiaer 

1 #so0 .oo 

1,6M .oo 

l,!MfJ.OO 

1,800 .oo 

a ,100 .OO 

8. &ve Yed.iorl aooial uorktr ... 

0. tighthourb suparriaor ....... 

ii: 

x&hthbuab Bup*niaor ....... 

Lig4thouaa 8upeiaor ....... 

110. Ligbthouae Guparriaor ....... 

18. Lighthouse Bupemiaor ....... 

Ma, Lighthouat Guperviaor ....... 

13. Uome reacher ................ 

2 

Uoum Teichar ................ 

Some Teaohar ................ 

l8. Iio me tea c her ................ 

1 08. ilo mb Tea c har ................ 

1 7. Ya ms Tea c ha r ,. .............. 

17a. Home Taaohar ................ 

1 #a00 .oo 

1,800 .OO 

1.800.00 

I #200 .oo 

; I=& .g 

1:200:00 

s,aoo.oo 

1 #izOO .oo 

1 400 .oo 

1,200.00 

1 ,a00 .oo 

1.800.00 

1#200.00 

1,200.00@ 

The Goastitutlon (Artlole 7111, Sea. a) dcolareaa 

“go monq shall be dram from the bvmmry 

but in pureuaDoe of rpecltio appropriation8 

ma de b y la T) l l l .í 

Ibis requires ape~iSi~ne88 aa t0 purpose, and likerice a8 to amount. the itema above quoted are apeaiflo, rithin the oonteaplatian of the Cooatitutloa. 

ft la implicit in this language alao, that an appropriation of public Ponq Sor l l peoi?io purpora may not be 

U44A -- dram troan the treaoury -- for any purpeae other than 

that apaoifmd * In other rordr, a apecifia appropriation tor 

one purpose is the vet-7 opposite of an appropriation tar 

another purpoa~~ 
‘. 

71 

nonorabla 

#'row those Oonaidoratiooa it follors as oi 

oouraa that hour que8tioa aboulU be anaware in the 

negative, and is aocordingly 80 mmmred. Tbia la in 

l ooord with the dwiaiona ai this State and the opinions of this Depurtraent.
# C_2006146EN.01000601.xml

| 22.6.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 146/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.6.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/6

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

21 June 2006

(2006/C 146/03)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2632 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 145,22 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4534 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,68550 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,2023 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5618 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 94,21 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,9140 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,5750 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 28,563 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 279,26 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6959 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4293 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,0965 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 3,5855 |
| SIT | Slovenian tolar | 239,64 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 38,530 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,1075 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,7181 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4051 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,8112 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 2,0474 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,0112 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 207,37 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 9,1011 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 10,1043 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,2550 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 11 826,71 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,632 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 67,202 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 34,1130 |
| THB | Thai baht | 48,488 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2632

JPY

Japanese yen

145,22

DKK

Danish krone

7,4534

GBP

Pound sterling

0,68550

SEK

Swedish krona

9,2023

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5618

ISK

Iceland króna

94,21

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,9140

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5750

CZK

Czech koruna

28,563

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

279,26

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6959

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4293

PLN

Polish zloty

4,0965

RON

Romanian leu

3,5855

SIT

Slovenian tolar

239,64

SKK

Slovak koruna

38,530

TRY

Turkish lira

2,1075

AUD

Australian dollar

1,7181

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4051

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,8112

NZD

New Zealand dollar

2,0474

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,0112

KRW

South Korean won

1 207,37

ZAR

South African rand

9,1011

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

10,1043

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,2550

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

11 826,71

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,632

PHP

Philippine peso

67,202

RUB

Russian rouble

34,1130

THB

Thai baht

48,488

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
# C_2006130EN.01001101.xml

| 3.6.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 130/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.6.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 130/11

---

Call for proposals for actions in the field of energy under the ‘Intelligent Energy — Europe’ Programme (Decision 1230/2003/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003, OJ L 176 of 15.7.2003)

(2006/C 130/08)

The Intelligent Energy Executive Agency (IEEA) is hereby launching a call for proposals for the ‘Intelligent Energy — Europe’ 2006 work programme. The call is closing on 31 October 2006 for all types of actions.

Information on the modalities of the call and guidance to proposers on how to submit projects, is available on:

http://ec.europa.eu/energy/intelligent/call_for_proposals/index_en.htm

The helpdesk of the ‘Intelligent Energy — Europe’ programme can be reached on:

http://ec.europa.eu/energy/intelligent/contact/index_en.htm

---
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

April 28, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

135732 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 135732 

 COA: 281830 

Genesee CC: 07-020750-FH 

DENNIS DUANE OSTRANDER, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 7, 2008 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

t0421 

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

April 28, 2008 

 Clerk
# C_2006096EN.01000501.xml

| 22.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/5

---

Action brought on 6 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

(Case C-67/06)

(2006/C 96/07)

Language of the case: Greek

An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 6 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Minas Konstantinidis and Amparo Alcover San Pedro, of its Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that, by not adopting, and in any event by not notifying to the Commission, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/49/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by not adopting, and in any event by not notifying to the Commission, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/49/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

1

| — | order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The time-limit for transposition of the directive into domestic law expired on 18 July 2004.

---

(1)  OJ No L 189, 18.7.2002, p. 12.

1

---