alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2006154EN.01001002.xml

| 1.7.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 154/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.7.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 154/10

---

Action brought on 12 April 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-187/06)

(2006/C 154/22)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J.-P. Keppenne, H. Van Vliet, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | declare that, by failing to execute within the prescribed period the Decision of 24 April 2002 (C(2002)1341 final) on the State aid implemented by Belgium for the Beaulieu group (Ter Lembeek International) (State Aid C 36/01, ex NN 73/00) (1), the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under the fourth paragraph of Article 249 of the EC Treaty and Articles 2 and 3 of that Decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by failing to execute within the prescribed period the Decision of 24 April 2002 (C(2002)1341 final) on the State aid implemented by Belgium for the Beaulieu group (Ter Lembeek International) (State Aid C 36/01, ex NN 73/00) (1), the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under the fourth paragraph of Article 249 of the EC Treaty and Articles 2 and 3 of that Decision;

1

| — | order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Nearly four years have passed since the Belgian authorities were notified of the Decision, yet the disputed aid has not, to date, actually been reimbursed by the beneficiary. The latter is still enjoying the benefits of using the funds, which is exactly what the Decision intended to put an end to.

---

(1)  OJ 2002 L 296, p.60

1

---
Exhibit 23.2

CONSENT OF KPMG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (File Numbers 33-20181, 33-35182, 2-90595,
33-23899, 33-58305, 33-44477, 33-65024, 33-65177, 333-10419, 333-28257, 333-42469, 33-45822,
33-63297, 333-49229, and 333-81794 on Forms S-8 and File Numbers 33-43574 and 333-109045 on
Forms S-3) of Chiron Corporation of our report dated January 28, 2002, relating to the consolidated statements of operations, comprehensive income, stockholders' equity and
cash flows of Chiron Corporation and subsidiaries for the year ended December 31, 2001 and the related consolidated 2001 financial statement schedule, included in the December 31, 2003
Annual Report on Form 10-K of Chiron Corporation.

/s/
KPMG LLP

San
Francisco, California
March 1, 2004

---

QuickLinks
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

July 31, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

130848 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

DAVID DARITY, Persona Robert P. Young, Jr. l Representative of Stephen J. Markman, the Estate of Frank Darity, Deceased, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 130848 

 COA: 256481 
 Wayne CC: 03-317616-NO

CITY OF FLAT ROCK, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 21, 2006 

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

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

t0724 

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. 

July 31, 2006 

 Clerk
SERVED: September 30, 2013 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTERS OF 

SKYWEST AIRLINES 

FAA DOCKET NO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

FDMS NO. FAA-2012- 0776 

FDMS NO. F AA-2012 - 0777 

FDMS NO. F AA-2012 - 0868 

FDMS NO. FAA-2012- 0869 

FDMS NO. FAA-2012- 0872 

FDMS NO. FAA-2012- 0873 

FDMS NO. FAA-2012- 0874 

FDMS NO. FAA-2012- 0904 

FDMS NO. F AA-2013 - 0292 

FDMS NO. FAA-2013- 0293 

FDMS NO. FAA-2013- 0612 

FDMS NO. FAA-2013 -0617 

FDMS NO. FAA-2013- 0619 

NOTICE 

Ira Leibowitz, Attorney-Advisor is retiring on September 30, 2013. 

All future communications should be directed to the undersigned at: 

Richard C. Goodwin, 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, Attn: Room E11-310 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey, S.E. 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

(Richard.Goodwin@dot.gov) 
Administrative matters should be directed to Patricia Matthews, Staff Assistant 

(202) 366-5121 (Patricia.Matthews@dot.gov) 

Richard C. Goodwin 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Attachment - Service List 

2 
FDMS Nos. FAA-2012-0776, 2012-0777, 2012-0868, 

2012-0869,2012-0872,2012-0873,2012-0874,2012-0904, 

(Civil Penalty Actions) 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1 0001 

ONE COPY 

Todd C. Emerson, Respondent's Counsel 

Director, Government and Legal Affairs 

SkyWest Airlines 

444 South River Road 

St. George, UT 84 790 

TEL: 435-634-3530 

FAX: 435-634-3505 

Michael L. Dworkin, Respondent's Counsel 

MICHAEL L. DWORKIN AND ASSOCIATES 

465 California Street, Suite 210 

San Francisco, CA 94104 

TEL: 415-421~2500 

FAX: 415-421-2560 

EMAIL: law@avialex.com 

Robert Spitzer, Complainant's Counsel 

Attorney, Office of Regional Counsel 

Northwest Mountain Region, ANM-7 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1601 Lind Avenue, S.W. 

Renton, W A 98057 

TEL: 425-227-1417 

FAX: 425-227-1007 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: 

Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 

2W1000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

3 
The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-5121 Staff Assistant 

FPCK: 202-366-7536 

4
Page 2 Attachment

Summary of United Parcel Service Co Petition for Extension of Exemption Number 8658

United Parcel Service Co. (UPS), Operati ng Certificate IPXA097 B, petitions the

Administrator for an extens ion of Exemption Number 8658 E (Docket Number FAA2005-22336) which is sc heduled to expire on January 31, 2016. An extension to January 31, 2018 of this exemption will a llow UPS a continuation of relief from §121.619(a)(1) and (2) in conducting domest ic operations utilizing a different methodology to determine the need for naming a destination alternate airport. This exemption lowers the ceiling and visibility from 2000 feet and 3 statute miles to 1000

feet and 2 statute miles for minimum weather forecast or other appropriate reports to not require the naming of a destination alternate. Th is is contingent upon the availability of a destination Category II approach, no forecast convective activity and certain flight monitoring capabilities.
# CA2006138EN.01000301.xml

| 13.6.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CA 138/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.6.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CA 138/3

---

Corrigendum to Notice of Open Competition EPSO/AD/38/05 to constitute a reserve of English language linguistic administrators (AD 5) in the field of translation

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 290 A of 23 November 2005
  )

Official Journal of the European Union C 290 A of 23 November 2005

(2006/C 138 A/01)

On page 6, section B, third paragraph of point 1, Admission tests — marking:

for:

for

‘For all admission tests, the 120 candidates (2) with the highest combined marks for the tests (and a pass-mark in each) will be invited to submit a full application with a view to possible admission to the following stage of the competition.’,

read:

read

“For all admission tests, the 240 candidates (2) with the highest combined marks for the tests (and a pass-mark in each) will be invited to submit a full application with a view to possible admission to the following stage of the competition.’

---
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 Princeton
National Bancorp, Inc. (PNBC) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31,
2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), I Todd D. Fanning, Vice President & Chief Financial Officer
of PNBC, certify, 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 my
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
  represents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of
  operations of PNBC.

|                    | 
|------------------- | 
|/s/ Todd D. Fanning | 

Todd D. Fanning
Senior Vice President & Chief Financial Officer

March 17, 2008

---
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

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

###### Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

This gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463) of October 6, 1972, that the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control Initial Review Group, Department of Health and Human Services, has been renewed for a 2-year period through August 20, 2011.

For information, contact Dr. Richard Waxweiler, Executive Secretary, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control Initial Review Group, Department of Health and Human Services, 1600 Clifton Road, M/S F63, Atlanta, Georgia 30341, telephone 770/488-4850, or fax 770/488-4422.

                    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign                     **Federal Register**                     notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and  Disease Registry.                

Dated: September 4, 2009.

Elaine L. Baker,

Director, Management Analysis and Services Office,  Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

[FR Doc. E9-22140 Filed 9-14-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
#### C. L. PYATT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-1054.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 30, 1974.

Certiorari denied.
#### George W. Lane *et al.,*Respondents, *against*Elias C. Humbert, Appellant.

(Decided May 7th, 1890.)

A deposit of $100 in lieu of the undertaking in the sum of $500 required by section 1326 of the Code of Civil Procedure on appeal from the City Court, is inadequate, as section 1306 requires that a deposit in lieu of an undertaking shall be equal to the amount for which the undertaking is required to be given ; but in such case opportunity will be given appellant to perfect the appeal.

Motion to dismiss appeal for want of prosecution and for irregularity.

*187Haseall, Glarlce, *Vdnderpoel,*for the motion.

*P. G.*Taiman, opposed.

Per Curiam.

[Present, Larremore, Ch. J., and J. F. Daly and Bischoff, JJ.]—Section 1826 of the Code provides that, to render an appeal effectual for any purpose, the appellant must give a written undertaking to the effect that he will pay all costs and damages which will be awarded against him on- the appeal not exceeding five hundred dollars. This the appellant did not do, but instead procured an order from a judge of the City Court staying all proceedings on the part of the respondents pending the appeal to this court upon the deposit of one hundred dollars with the clerk of that court in lieu of the required undertaking. Section 1306 of the Code provides that where a deposit of money is made instead of security, such deposit must be in a sum equal to the amount for which the undertaking is required to be given. Therefore the deposit is inadequate, and the appellant has failed in that respect to perfect his appeal as required by law. But this is an irregularity which may be cured.

The appellant also failed to serve the papers required within the time prescribed by the rules and practice of this court, although we think his counsel, in his affidavit, has sufficiently excused his laches in this respect.

The motion to dismiss the appeal will therefore be denied, provided the appellant applies at Special Term on or before the 9th instant for leave to perfect his appeal as required by law, and stipulates to argue the said appeal at this General Term on or before the 15th instant; otherwise the appeal will be dismissed, with costs. Ten dollars costs of this motion to the respondents to abide the event.

Order accordingly.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3342 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3342

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to assist in assuring health 
           coverage for workers over 55 who leave employment.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 25, 1996

  Mr. Stark introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to assist in assuring health 
           coverage for workers over 55 who leave employment.

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

SECTION 1. CONTINUATION OF COVERAGE FOR PERSONS AGED 55 OR OLDER.

    (a) In General.--Section 4980B(f)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code 
of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following:
                    ``(F) Coverage for persons aged 55 or older.--In 
                the case of a covered employee who has attained the age 
                of 55 before incurring the qualifying event described 
                in paragraph (3)(B), after the period described in 
                subparagraph (B)(i)(I)--
                            ``(i) the coverage extends until the 
                        qualifying event described in paragraph (3)(D) 
                        without regard to subclauses (II) through (V) 
                        of subparagraph (B)(i), and
                            ``(ii) the premium requirements for any 
                        period of continuation of coverage solely by 
                        reason of clause (i) apply by substituting 
                        ``110 percent'' for ``102 percent'' in 
                        subparagraph (C)(i), unless the last sentence 
                        of subparagraph (C) otherwise applies.''
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply with respect to plan years beginning after December 31, 1996.
                                 <all>
```
#### Catherine JENKINS, Petitioner, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Corrections, State of Florida, Appellee.

No. 74-416.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 11, 1974.

Habeas Corpus denied.
# C_2006131EN.01001902.xml

| 3.6.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 131/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.6.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 131/19

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 23 March 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione) — Honyvem Informazioni Commerciali Srl v Mariella De Zotti

(Case C-465/04) (1)

1

(Independent commercial agents - Directive 86/653/EEC - Entitlement of a commercial agent to an indemnity after termination of the contract)

(2006/C 131/34)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Honyvem Informazioni Commerciali Srl

Applicant:

Defendant: Mariella De Zotti

Defendant:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Corte Suprema di Cassazione — Interpretation of Articles 17 and 19 of Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-employed commercial agents (OJ 1986 L 382, p. 17) — Right of a commercial agent to an indemnity or damages on termination of contract

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 19 of Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-employed commercial agents must be interpreted as meaning that the indemnity for termination of contract which results from the application of Article 17(2) of the directive cannot be replaced, pursuant to a collective agreement, by an indemnity determined in accordance with criteria other than those prescribed by Article 17, unless it is established that the application of such an agreement guarantees the commercial agent, in every case, an indemnity equal to or greater than that which results from the application of Article 17. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 19 of Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-employed commercial agents must be interpreted as meaning that the indemnity for termination of contract which results from the application of Article 17(2) of the directive cannot be replaced, pursuant to a collective agreement, by an indemnity determined in accordance with criteria other than those prescribed by Article 17, unless it is established that the application of such an agreement guarantees the commercial agent, in every case, an indemnity equal to or greater than that which results from the application of Article 17.

| 2. | Within the framework prescribed by Article 17(2) of Directive 86/653, the Member States enjoy a margin of discretion which they may exercise, in particular, in relation to the criterion of equity. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Within the framework prescribed by Article 17(2) of Directive 86/653, the Member States enjoy a margin of discretion which they may exercise, in particular, in relation to the criterion of equity.

---

(1)  OJ C 31 of 05.02.2005.

1

---
#### CALDER RACE COURSE, INC., a Florida Corporation, Appellant, v. Dr. Leon G. VAN WERT, Chairman of the Florida Pari-Mutuel Commission; James Lewis, Steve Abramson, Cope Newbern and Billy Vessels, Members of the Florida Pari-Mutuel Commission, Department of Business Regulation of the State of Florida (herein “the Commission”); the Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering of the Department of Business Regulation (herein “the Division”); and West Flagler Associates, Ltd., Biscayne Kennel Club, Inc., Investment Corporation of South Florida, Inc., and World Jai Alai, Inc., d/b/a Summer Jai Alai (herein “Miami”), Appellees.

No. WW-443.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Aug. 27, 1980.

*1250Wilbur E. Brewton of Taylor, Brion, Buker & Greene, Tallahassee, for appellant.

Sam Spector of Spector & Tunnicliff, Tallahassee, Stuart W. Patton of Patton, Kan-ner, Segal, Seller, King & Kubit, William P. Cagney, III, Miami, Daniel C. Brown and David M. Maloney, Tallahassee, for appel-lees.

PER CURIAM.

Time being of the essence, we granted accelerated review of Calder Race Course, Inc.’s appeal from an order of the Florida Pari-Mutuel Commission approving a schedule of operating dates for summer jai alai, including afternoon or matinee performances, for appellees-purchasers of an existing pari-mutuel permit (Miami Beach Kennel Club, Inc.), upon its conversion to a jai alai permit under Chapter 80-88, Laws of Florida (1980).

Appellant contends (1) that the Commission’s order of July 29,1980 awarding matinee performance dates was barred by res judicata because at a prior hearing, on June 27, 1980, a motion for approval of matinee performance dates died for lack of a second, and the application was pronounced “denied” by the Commission’s chairman, although no vote of the Commission was taken; (2) that the permit (Miami Beach Kennel Club, Inc.) had not conducted afternoon or matinee performances “prior to the conversion” to summer jai alai, as required by Chapter 80-88, although it had run matinee performances in 1978; and (3) that the Commission lacked authority to authorize matinees for the summer of 1980 because of its failure to adopt a rule as required by newly enacted Section 550.011(2), Florida Statutes (Chapter 80-57, Laws of Florida (1980)).

After consideration of these and other contentions presented by the parties in their briefs and oral arguments before this court, we conclude that reversible error does not appear, and the order appealed from is affirmed.

ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., LARRY G. SMITH and SHIVERS, JJ., concur.
#### James M. NOEL and Isabella G. Noel, his wife, Appellants, v. Paul Revere SMITH and Priscilla Bridge Smith, his wife, Appellees.

No. 74-1046.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Nov. 12, 1974.

Appeal dismissed.