alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2006060EN.01002803.xml

| 11.3.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 60/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 60/28

---

Action brought on 17 January 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

(Case C-19/06)

(2006/C 60/54)

Language of the case: French

An action against the French Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 17 January 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Michel Nolin, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

| 1. | declare that by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2002/89/EC of 28 November 2002 amending Directive 2000/29/EC on protective measures against the introduction into the Community of organisms harmful to plants or plant products and against their spread within the Community (1) or, in any event, by not communicating the provisions in question to the Commission, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

declare that by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2002/89/EC of 28 November 2002 amending Directive 2000/29/EC on protective measures against the introduction into the Community of organisms harmful to plants or plant products and against their spread within the Community (1) or, in any event, by not communicating the provisions in question to the Commission, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

1

| 2. | order the French Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

order the French Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for transposition of Directive 2002/89 expired on 31 December 2004.

---

(1)  OJ L 355 of 30.12.2002, p. 45.

1

---
<PAGE>




                                                                    EXHIBIT 12.1

                      LEHMAN BROTHERS INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                              (DOLLARS IN MILLIONS)
                                   (UNAUDITED)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                                                                           For
                                                                                                                         the Nine
                                                                                                                          Months
                                                                                                                          Ended
                                                             For the Twelve Months Ended November 30                    August 31
                                                -------------------------------------------------------------------    ------------
                                                  1996          1997           1998          1999          2000           2001
                                                ----------    ----------     ----------    ----------    ----------    ------------
<S>                                              <C>           <C>            <C>           <C>           <C>           <C>
Pre-tax earnings from continuing operations      $    309      $    593       $    847      $  1,013      $  1,617        $ 1,064

Add:  Fixed charges (excluding capitalized
       interest)                                   10,140        12,233         14,746        12,552        16,076         10,829
                                                ----------    ----------     ----------    ----------    ----------    -----------

Pre-tax earnings before fixed charges              10,449       12,826          15,593        13,565        17,693        $11,893
                                                ==========    =========      ==========    ==========    ==========    ===========

Fixed charges:
       Interest                                    10,121        12,216         14,730        12,535        16,059         10,808
       Other (a)                                       25            19             20            17            17             21
                                                ----------    ----------     ----------    ----------    ----------    -----------

       Total fixed charges                       $ 10,146      $ 12,235       $ 14,750      $ 12,552      $ 16,076        $10,829
                                                ----------    ----------     ----------    ----------    ----------    -----------


RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES                   1.03          1.05           1.06          1.08          1.10           1.10
</TABLE>
# C_2006068EN.01002101.xml

| 21.3.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/21

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4072 — NEC/Philips Business Communications)

(2006/C 68/14)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 13 March 2006, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4072. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4072. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

---
EXHIBIT 14

                   SUBSIDIARIES OF UTAH MEDICAL PRODUCTS, INC.

                           FILED IN ELECTRONIC FORMAT

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

            SUBSIDIARIES  OF  UTAH  MEDICAL  PRODUCTS,  INC.:

                                      Jurisdiction  of
 Subsidiary  Name                       Organization    Business  Name
----------------                      -----------------  --------------
<S>                                 <C>                 <C>
Utah Medical Products Ltd.            Bermuda              Utah Medical Products

Columbia Medical & Surgical, Inc.     Oregon               Columbia  Medical

Utah Medical Products,                California           Utah Medical Products
California, Inc

Utah Medical Products,                Florida              Utah  Medical Products
Florida, Inc

Utah Medical Products,                Ohio                 Utah  Medical Products
Ohio, Inc.

Utah Medical Products,                Pennsylvania         Utah  Medical
Pennsylvania, Inc.
Products

Utah Medical Products,                Texas              Utah  Medical Products
Texas, Inc
</TABLE>
#### Jonah MACK, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 74-834.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 31, 1974.

Phillip A. Hubbart, Public Defender, and Kathleen Gallagher, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Stephen Nagin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before PEARSON, HENDRY and NATHAN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, defendant in the trial court, was charged by information with aggravated assault. He was tried by jury, convicted and sentenced to five years in the state penitentiary. Three points are raised on appeal.

*265The first point, that the court erred in denying the defendant’s motion to proffer his face to the jury for examination in order to contradict testimony of the state’s witnesses that the defendant had'been injured as the result of a speargun attack by the alleged victim, is without merit, especially where the defendant took the stand and the jury was able to view him at all times.

The second point raised on appeal is that the court erred in failing to give the jury instruction requested by the defendant on the lesser included offense of improper exhibition of a weapon or firearm where, as the appellant contends, the evidence meets all of the requirements for that offense. The appellant fails to set forth any authority for the proposition that improper exhibition of a weapon or firearm is a lesser included offense of aggravated assault. Absent a showing that “the lesser included offense is ‘comprehended’ within the major offense to the extent that it is within the general scope of the charge made . . . ”, we find no abuse of discretion and no reversible error in the court’s denial of same. State v. Anderson, Fla.1973, 270 So.2d 353, 355. Accord Brown v. State, Fla.1968, 206 So.2d 377 and DeLaine v. State, Fla.1972, 262 So.2d 655.

The third point raised on appeal is that the court erred in assessing $2 court costs against the defendant because he had been adjudicated insolvent. It is stated in § 939.15, Fla.Stat., that:

> “Costs paid by county in cases of insolvency. — When the defendant in any criminal case pending in any circuit or county court, a district court of appeal or the supreme court of this state has been adjudged insolvent by the circuit judge or the judge of the county court, upon affidavit and proof as required by § 924.17 in cases of appeal, or when the defendant is discharged or the judgment reversed, the costs allowed by law shall be paid by the county in which the crime was committed, upon presentation to the county commissioners of a certified copy of the judgment of the court against such county for such costs.”

It was, therefore, error for the court to assess costs against the defendant.

For the reasons stated, the judgment and conviction appealed are affirmed and the order assessing court costs against the defendant is reversed, and the defendant is released from his obligation to pay said costs.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part.
EXHIBIT 32.2


                  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) and
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


     In connection with the filing by Wincroft, Inc. (the "Company") of the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ending December 31, 2005 (the
"Report"), I, Danny Wettreich, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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)
               and 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
               operation of the Company.




                                               /s/ Danny Wettreich
                                               ---------------------------------
                                               Danny Wettreich
                                               Chief Financial Officer


Dated:  February 14, 2006
# C_2005330EN.01001203.xml

| 24.12.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 330/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.12.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 330/12

---

Removal from the register of Case C-450/04 (1)

1

(2005/C 330/26)

Language of the case: French

Language of the case: French

By order of 28 September 2005, the President of the Court of Justice (Fourth Chamber) of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-450/04: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic.

---

(1)  OJ C 314, 18.12.2004.

1

---
# C_2005217EN.01004402.xml

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/44

---

Action brought on 10 May 2005 by Alenia Marconi Systems SpA against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-186/05)

(2005/C 217/97)

Language of the case: Italian

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 10 May 2005 by Alenia Marconi Systems SpA, established in Rome (Italy), represented by Francesco Sciaudone, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| 1. | declare that, by having adopted the decision of 12 February 2004, the Commission has incurred non-contractual liability; |
| --- | --- |

1.

declare that, by having adopted the decision of 12 February 2004, the Commission has incurred non-contractual liability;

| 2. | declare that the applicant has suffered damage as a result of that decision, quantified at EUR 72.8 million; |
| --- | --- |

2.

declare that the applicant has suffered damage as a result of that decision, quantified at EUR 72.8 million;

| 3. | order the Commission to make good such damage, together with compensatory interest and any interest on arrears; |
| --- | --- |

3.

order the Commission to make good such damage, together with compensatory interest and any interest on arrears;

| 4. | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

This action seeks to obtain an order against the Commission to make good, as a matter of non-contractual liability, the damage caused to the applicant, by the defendant's alleged failure, in adopting the decision of 12 February 2004, to exercise correctly the supervisory functions it has in relation to monitoring the application of the Community competition provisions. That decision rejected the complaint lodged by the company then named Alenia Difesa, the business arm of FINMECCANICA SpA, in connection with the supposed absence of the preconditions for the applicability to Eurocontrol of the Community competition provisions and the absence of sufficient evidence to prove the alleged abuses to which the complaint related.

The same decision was challenged by the same applicant by means of an action for annulment. (1)

1

In support of its claims, the applicant pleads infringement of Article 82 of the Treaty in the assessment of its applicability to Eurocontrol, infringement of the duties of supervision of the application of the competition rules, infringement of the obligation to examine the complaint impartially and diligently, infringement of its rights as the complainant and infringement of the principle of reasonable duration of the administrative proceedings.

---

(1)  Case T-155/04 Alenia Marconi Systems v Commission (OJ C 179 of 10.7.04, p. 11).

1

Alenia Marconi Systems

Commission

---
§ 584.512 Authorizing Certain Transactions in Support of Nongovernmental Organizations' Activities. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, all transactions prohibited by this part that are ordinarily incident and necessary to the activities described in paragraph (b) of this section by a nongovernmental organization are authorized, provided that the nongovernmental organization is not a person whose property or interests in property are blocked pursuant to this part.
( b ) The activities referenced in paragraph (a) of this section are non-commercial activities designed to directly benefit the civilian population that fall into one of the following categories: ( 1 ) Activities to support humanitarian projects to meet basic human needs, including disaster, drought, or flood relief; food, nutrition, or medicine distribution; the provision of health services; assistance for vulnerable or displaced populations, including individuals with disabilities and the elderly; and environmental programs;
( 2 ) Activities to support democracy building, including activities to support rule of law, citizen participation, government accountability and transparency, human rights and fundamental freedoms, access to information, and civil society development projects;
( 3 ) Activities to support education, including combating illiteracy, increasing access to education, international exchanges, and assisting education reform projects;
( 4 ) Activities to support non-commercial development projects directly benefiting civilians, including those related to health, food security, and water and sanitation;
( 5 ) Activities to support environmental and natural resource protection, including the preservation and protection of threatened or endangered species, responsible and transparent management of natural resources, and the remediation of pollution or other environmental damage; and
( 6 ) Activities to support disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration (DDR) programs and peacebuilding, conflict prevention, and conflict resolution programs.
( c ) This section does not authorize funds transfers initiated or processed with knowledge or reason to know that the intended beneficiary of such transfers is a person blocked pursuant to this part, other than for the purpose of effecting the payment of taxes, fees, or import duties, or the purchase or receipt of permits, licenses, or public utility services.
( d ) Specific licenses may be issued on a case-by-case basis to authorize nongovernmental or other entities to engage in other activities designed to directly benefit the civilian population, including support for the removal of landmines and economic development projects directly benefiting the civilian population.
Note 1 to § 584.512 .
This section does not relieve any person authorized thereunder from complying with any other applicable laws or regulations.
[87 FR 78501, Dec. 21, 2022]
# C_2006154EN.01001701.xml

| 1.7.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 154/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.7.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 154/17

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 28 March 2006 — Mediocurso v Commission

(Case T-451/04) (1)

1

(Action for failure to act - Compliance with a judgment of the Court of Justice - Adoption of implementing measures during the proceedings - No need to adjudicate)

(2006/C 154/44)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Mediocurso — Estabelecimento de Ensino Particular, Lda (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: C. Botelho Moniz and E. Maia Cadete, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. Andrade and A. Weimar, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Action for failure to act seeking a declaration that the Commission unlawfully failed to adopt the measures needed to comply with the judgment in Case C-462/98 P Mediocurso v Commission [2000] ECR I-7183

Mediocurso

Commission

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present action.

.

| 2. | The Commission shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Mediocurso — Estabelecimento de Ensino Particular, Lda. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Commission shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Mediocurso — Estabelecimento de Ensino Particular, Lda.

---

(1)  OJ C 19, 22.1.05.

1

---
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3341 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3341

 To amend the Controlled Substances Act to provide an enhanced penalty 
for distributing a controlled substance with the intent to facilitate a 
                        rape or sexual battery.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 25, 1996

 Mr. Solomon introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
    Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on 
Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in 
   each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the 
                jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Controlled Substances Act to provide an enhanced penalty 
for distributing a controlled substance with the intent to facilitate a 
                        rape or sexual battery.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Drug-Induced Rape Act of 1996''.

SEC. 2. DISTRIBUTION OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE WITH INTENT TO FACILITATE 
              A RAPE OR SEXUAL BATTERY.

    Section 401(b) of the Controlled Substances Act is amended by 
adding at the end the following:
            ``(7)(A) Any person who violates subsection (a) of this 
        section by distributing a controlled substance with the intent 
        to facilitate conduct that would violate section 2241(b)(1) or 
        2242(2) of  title 18, United States Code, if that conduct 
        occurred in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction 
        of the United States, shall be fined not more than $2,000,000 
        if the defendant is an individual and not more than $10,000,000 
        if the defendant is a person other than an individual and 
        imprisoned not less than 20 years.
            ``(B) Notwithstanding any other provision of law the court 
        shall not place on probation or suspend the sentence of any 
        person sentenced under this paragraph.''.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 21

                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

         The following is a list of  subsidiaries of the Company at December 31,
1999 and all are included in the Company's consolidated financial statements:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>



<S>                                                 <C>                         <C>
                                                       Jurisdiction                  Percentage of
                                                           of                      Voting Securities
Subsidiaries                                          Incorporation                      Owned
------------                                         --------------              --------------------

Britton & Koontz First National Bank                   Federal Law                       100%

Sumx Inc.                                              Federal Law                     38.25%




NOTES:

Britton & Koontz First National  Bank is a  consolidated subsidiary of Britton &
Koontz Capital Corporation.  Sumx  Inc.  is  an  inveatment  of Britton & Koontz
Capital Corporation accounted for by the equity method.


</TABLE>