alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2019025EN.01003402.xml

| 21.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 25/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 25/34

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 November 2018 — Sigma Alimentos Exterior v Commission

(Case T-239/11) (1)

((State aid - Corporate income tax provisions allowing companies domiciled in Spain to amortise the goodwill resulting from acquisitions of shareholdings in undertakings which are tax resident abroad - Decision declaring the aid to be incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery - Concept of State aid - Selectivity - Reference system - Derogation - Differential treatment - Justification of differential treatment))

(2019/C 25/43)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Sigma Alimentos Exterior, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented initially by A. Morillo Méndez and M. Ferre Navarrete, and subsequently by A. Morillo Méndez, J. Igual Gorgonio and C. Cañizares Pacheco, lawyers.)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by R. Lyal, C. Urraca Caviedes and P. Němečková and subsequently by Lyal and C. Urraca Caviedes, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Article 1(1) and Article 4 of Commission Decision 2011/282/EU of 12 January 2011 on the tax amortisation of financial goodwill for foreign shareholding acquisitions No C 45/07 (ex NN 51/07, ex CP 9/07) implemented by Spain (OJ 2011 L 135, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action.

| 2. | Orders Sigma Alimentos Exterior, SL to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Sigma Alimentos Exterior, SL to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 204, 9.7.2011.

---
§ 163.003-17 Strength. ( a ) Each pilot ladder must be designed to pass the approval tests in § 163.003-21.
( b ) [Reserved]
**EXHIBIT32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)**

** **

In connection with theAnnual Report of First Federal Bancshares of Arkansas, Inc. (the “Registrant”)on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), the undersigned certifies,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as added by Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

a)     The Report fully complies withthe requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and

 

b)    The information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Registrant as of and for the period covered bythe Report.

 

 
|                     | /s/Larry J.  Brandt      |   |
|--------------------------|--------------------------|--------|
|                     | Larry J.  Brandt         |
|                     | Chief  Executive Officer |
|                     |                     |
| Date:  February 28, 2006 |                     |

 

----
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-500
In Re: JAMES CHARLES SLADE, Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-95-286-3) Submitted: February 7, 1996 Decided: February 29, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Charles Slade, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: James Charles Slade brought this mandamus petition seeking an order directing the district court to order the United States to respond to his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988) motion. The district court has recently directed a response. Therefore, the complaint of delay in the district court is moot. Accordingly, while we grant leave toproceed in forma pauperis, we deny the mandamus petition. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not significantly aid in the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
###### Editorial Note on Part 160

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 160 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59785, 59786, Oct. 1, 2012.

#### § 160.005-7 Procedure for approval.

*General.* Manufacturers seeking approval of a life preserver design shall follow the procedures of subpart 159.005 of this chapter, as explained in § 160.001-3 of this part.

[CGD 95-028, 62 FR 51211, Sept. 30, 1997]
Editorial Note on Part 164
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 164 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59787, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 164.023-11 Acceptance tests. ( a ) *Performance testing.* Manufacturers shall ensure that the performance tests described in § 164.023-7 (a) or (b), as appropriate, are performed on a minimum of five samples in each of the lightest and darkest colors submitted for acceptance.
( b ) *Identification testing.* Manufacturers shall ensure that the following identification tests are conducted: ( 1 ) The average length/weight ratio of the thread in meters per kilogram (yards per pound) must be determined in accordance with Test Method 4010 in Federal Test Method Standard 191A.
( 2 ) The generic chemical composition of the thread must be determined by qualitative infrared analysis, thermogravimetric analysis, differential scanning calorimeter, or other equivalent means adequate to conclusively identify the composition of the product tested.
( 3 ) Elongation at break must be determined on the same samples tested for single strand breaking test in accordance with § 164.023-7(a)(1) or (b)(1), as appropriate.
#### § 171.135 Weather deck drainage on a vessel of 100 gross tons or more.

The weather deck must have freeing ports, open rails, and scuppers, as necessary, to allow rapid clearing of water under all weather conditions.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, 

 Case Number: 14-cr-20789 

 v. Honorable Thomas L. Ludington 

D-1 ZACHARY RICHARD WILKS, 

a/k/a ZACHARY RICHARD CHAMBERLAIN, 

 Defendant. 

_______________________________________/ 

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, ACCEPTING 

DEFENDANT’S PLEA OF GUILTY, AND TAKING THE RULE 11 PLEA 

AGREEMENT UNDER ADVISEMENT 

On March 18, 2015, United States Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris conducted a plea 

hearing pursuant to Defendant’s consent. The Magistrate Judge issued her report on March 19, 

2015, recommending that this Court accept Defendant’s plea of guilty. 

Although the Magistrate Judge’s report explicitly stated that the parties to this action may 

object to and seek review of the recommendation within fourteen days of service of the report, 

neither Plaintiff nor Defendant filed any objections. The election not to file objections to the 

Magistrate Judge’s report releases the Court from its duty to independently review the record. 

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). The failure to file objections to the report and 

recommendation waives any further right to appeal. 

 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, 

ECF No. 29, is ADOPTED. 

 It is further ORDERED that Defendant’s plea of guilty is ACCEPTED, and the Rule 11 

Plea Agreement, ECF No. 28, is taken UNDER ADVISEMENT. 

Dated: April 7, 2015 s/Thomas L. Ludington 

 THOMAS L. LUDINGTON 

 United States District Judge 

Case 1:14-cr-20789-TLL-PTM ECF No. 33, PageID.146 Filed 04/07/15 Page 1 of 2
PROOF OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served 

upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first 

class U.S. mail on April 7, 2015. 

 s/Karri Sandusky 

 Karri Sandusky, Acting Case Manager 

Case 1:14-cr-20789-TLL-PTM ECF No. 33, PageID.147 Filed 04/07/15 Page 2 of 2
#### BUILDING TRADES PAINT AND SPECIALTIES CORPORATION, PROSECUTOR, v. WILLIAM R. BEILIG, DEFENDANT.

Argued October 3, 1929

Decided October 17, 1929.

Before Justices Pakkek, Black and Bodine.

*906Eor the prosecutor, *Raymond R. Berry.*

Eor the defendant, *Rowe & Davis.*

Pee Cubiam.

The writ brings up an injunctive order of the Orange District Court, and incidentally the proceedings in the case of which that order was a step.

Plaintiffs recovered a judgment against one Levengard in the First District Court of Newark, issued execution, there was a levy on personalty, and the property was advertised for sale, when defendant began an attachment suit against plaintiffs, in the Orange court, and on his application that court made an order restraining the prosecutor and the officer holding the execution from proceeding thereon; and later on, refused, on application of the prosecutor, to vacate that restraint; whereupon this writ of *certiorari*was allowed.

The order in question will be set aside, with costs. Whatever may be the right of Beilig to attach the rights and credits of prosecutor, we are unable to see any jurisdiction in the Orange court to interfere with the execution of the process of a court of co-ordinate jurisdiction. Indeed, counsel for defendant admit this but say they have discontinued the attachment suit “without prejudice, however, to the right of the plaintiff [Beilig] to commence a new suit.” Notwithstanding this, we think prosecutor is entitled to the action of this court specifically vacating the injunctive order under review; and rule may therefore be entered overruling the same and setting it aside, with costs.
BILLING CODE: 6715-01-M 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

Sunshine Act Notice 

AGENCY: FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION OF PREVIOUS ANNOUNCEMENT- 77 FR 33458 

(June 6, 2012) 

DATE & TIME: THURSDAY. JUNE 7. 2012 AT 10:00 A.M. 

PLACE: 

STATUS: 

999 E STREET, N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. (NINTH FLOOR) 

THIS MEETING WILL BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. 

CHANGES IN THE MEETING -The following item has been added to the agenda: 

2012 Meeting Dates (Second Half) 

Individuals who plan to attend and require special assistance, such as sign language 

interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should contact Shawn Woodhead 

Werth, Secretary, at (202) 694-1040, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting date. 

PERSON TO CONTACT FOR INFORMATION: Judith Ingram, Press Officer 

Telephone: (202) 694-1220 

Signed: 

Shawn Woodhead Werth 

Secretary of the Commission 

Submitted: June 6, 2012
# C_2011282EN.01002202.xml

| 24.9.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 282/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.9.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/22

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 14 July 2011 — Trabelsi and Others v Council

(Case T-187/11 R)

(Interim measures - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia - Freezing of funds - Application for suspension of operation and for interim measures - Lack of urgency)

2011/C 282/46

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Mohamed Trabelsi (Paris, France); Ines Lejri (Paris); Moncef Trabelsi (Paris); Selima Trabelsi (Paris); and Tarek Trabelsi (Paris) (represented initially by A. Metzker, and subsequently by A. Tekari, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Vitro and G. Étienne, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for interim measures and for suspension of operation of Council Implementing Decision 2011/79/CFSP of 4 February 2011 implementing Decision 2011/72/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia (OJ 2011 L 31, p. 40).

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | Costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Costs are reserved.

---
Mr. Doug Neeley, Chief 

Air Toxics & Monitoring Branch 

IJS EPA - Region 4 

Sam Nunn - Atlanta Federal Center 

6 1 Forsyth Street, SW 

Atlanta, GA 30303 

Ilear Mr. Neeley: 

As Senior Air Pollution Control Officer in the State of Alabama, 1 certify that the 2009 

ambient ozone, and the PM2.5 in Pelham (01-1 17-0006) and Jasper (01 -1 27-0002) 

concentration and quality assurance data at all SLAMS and at all SPM stations is completely 

submitted to AQS and that the data is accurate to the best of my knowledge taking into 

consideration the quality assurance findings. 

The Quick Look Criteria Parameters report, AMP 450 and the PrecisionlAccuracy Quality 

Indicators Report, AMP 255 will be submitted by email to you. Certification of' other 

parameters and the rest of the PM2.5 data will be submitted at a later date. 

Ronald W. Gore, Chief 

Air Division 

Decatur Branch 

1, 15 :an ~!h! PO^^,: ~ '$4 

L ?.I ITU, AL ,5oi!i-l .3' 

,:c,,, :,:3 I-!?, 

.,ct,l ~AI 4>T c3,.,
§ 122.206 Written report of marine casualty. ( a ) The owner, master, agent, or person in charge shall, within five days, file a written report of any marine casualty. This written report is in addition to the immediate notice required by § 122.202. This written report must be delivered to a Coast Guard Sector Office, or Marine Inspection Office. It must be provided on Form CG-2692 (Report of Marine Accident, Injury, or Death), Supplemented as necessary by appended Forms CG-2692A (Barge Addendum) and CG-2692B (Report of Required Chemical Drug and Alcohol Testing Following a Serious Marine Incident).
( b ) If filed without delay after the occurrence of the marine casualty, the notice required by paragraph (a) of this section suffices as the notice required by § 122.202.
[CGD 85-080, 61 FR 935, Jan. 10, 1996, as amended by USCG-2006-25556, 72 FR 36330, July 2, 2007]
Editorial Note on Part 160
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 160 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59785, 59786, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 160.023-5 Labeling and marking. ( a ) *Labeling.* A label showing firing instructions in accordance with specification MIL-S-18655, and to include the commercial designation of the signal, the lot number, Coast Guard approval number, the service life expiration date (month and year to be inserted by the manufacturer), and month and year of manufacture, shall be applied in a neat, workmanlike manner after the paint has become thoroughly dry. The label shall be attached to the signal and then protected by a transparent moisture impervious coating.
( b ) *Marking of expiration date.* The expiration date must be not more than 42 months from the date of manufacture.
( c ) *Other marking.* ( 1 ) In addition to any other marking placed on the smallest packing carton or box containing signals, such cartons or boxes shall be plainly and indelibly marked to show the service life expiration date, the date of manufacture, and the lot number.
( 2 ) The largest carton or box in which the manufacturer ships signals must be marked with the following or equivalent words: “Keep under cover in a dry place.”
Note:
Compliance with the labeling requirements of this section does not relieve the manufacturer of the responsibility of complying with the label requirements of 15 U.S.C. 1263, the Federal Hazardous Substances Act.
#### Mary A. Bertina, Respondent, *v.*The People's Trust Company, Defendant, and Anna Frith, as Administratrix of the Estate of Francis E. Frith, Deceased, Appellant.

Reported below, 133 App. Div. 918.

(Submitted January 3, 1910;

decided January 11, 1910.)

Motion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered July 2, 1909, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict in an action to recover upon a promissory note.

The motion was made upon the ground that the appeal presented no questions of law for review.

*Edmund F. Driggs*for motion.

*James P. Judge*opposed.

Motion denied, with ten dollars costs.
**EXHIBIT 32****CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**The undersigned, Cynthia K. Christy-Langenfeld, Chief Executive Officer of Lucent Technologies Inc.(the “Company”), and David W. Hitchcock, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that: (1) the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended September 30, 2006(the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and  (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.Date: December 14, 2006/s/ Cynthia K. Christy-LangenfeldCynthia K. Christy-Langenfeld
Supreme Court of the United States

Office of the Clerk

Washington, DC 20543-0001

March 31, 2017

Clerk

United States District Court

 for the District of Columbia

E. Barrett Prettyman U. S. Courthouse

333 Constitution Ave., NW

Washington, D. C. 20001-2899

Re: Independence Institute

v. Federal Election Commission,

No. 16-743 (Your docket No. 14-cv-1500)

Dear Clerk:

Attached please find a certified copy of the judgment of this Court in the above-entitled 

case. You may obtain a copy of the opinion by visiting our website, http://www.supremecourt.gov.

Sincerely,

SCOTT S. HARRIS, Clerk

By 

Hervé Bocage

Judgments/Mandates Clerk

Enc.

cc: Mr. Allen Joseph Dickerson, Esq.

 

 

 

 

 

Scott S. Harris

Clerk of the Court

(202) 479-3011

Case 1:14-cv-01500-CKK-PAM-APM Document 57 Filed 03/31/17 Page 1 of 3
Supreme Court of the United States

Office of the Clerk

Washington, DC 20543-0001

March 31, 2017

Mr. Allen Joseph Dickerson, Esq.

Center for Competitive Politics

124 S. West Street, Suite 201

Alexandria, VA 22314

Re: Independence Institute

v. Federal Election Commission,

No. 16-743

Dear Mr. Dickerson:

Today, a certified copy of the judgment of this Court in the above-entitled case was 

emailed to the Clerk, United States District Court for the District of Columbia. You may 

obtain a copy of the opinion by visiting our website, http://www.supremecourt.gov.

 Sincerely,

 SCOTT S. HARRIS, Clerk

 By 

 Herve’ Bocage

 Judgments/Mandates Clerk

cc: Clerk, United States District Court 

 for the District of Columbia (Your docket No. 14-cv-1500)

 

Scott S. Harris

Clerk of the Court

(202) 479-3011

Case 1:14-cv-01500-CKK-PAM-APM Document 57 Filed 03/31/17 Page 2 of 3
Supreme Court of the United States

No. 16-743

INDEPENDENCE INSTITUTE,

 Appellant

v.

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

ON APPEAL FROM the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

THIS CAUSE having been submitted on the statement as to jurisdiction and the 

motion to dismiss or affirm.

ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, it is ordered and adjudged by this Court that 

the judgment is affirmed.

February 27, 2017

Case 1:14-cv-01500-CKK-PAM-APM Document 57 Filed 03/31/17 Page 3 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

DONALD DOWD, et al.,

Plaintiffs, Case No. 2:14-CV-14018-MAG-DRG

v. District Judge Mark A. Goldsmith

Magistrate Judge David R. Grand

DIRECTV, LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

__________________________________________________________________________

INDEX OF EXHIBITS TO DEFENDANT DIRECTSAT USA, LLC’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF

MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

__________________________________________________________________________

EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION

1 Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Complaint in Hall v. DIRECTV (D.

Md.)

2 June 30, 2015 Memorandum and Order in Hall v. DIRECTV (D.

Md.)

Respectfully submitted:

FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP

/s/ Colin D. Dougherty

Colin D. Dougherty

Jonathan D. Christman

10 Sentry Parkway, Ste. 200

P.O. Box 3001

Blue Bell, PA 19422

(610) 397-6500

Eric E. Reed

2000 Market Street, 20th Floor

Philadelphia, PA 19103-3222

(215) 299-2741

ereed@foxrothschild.com

Dated: July 6, 2015 Attorneys for Defendant

DirectSat USA, LLC

2:14-cv-14018-MAG-DRG Doc # 68-1 Filed 07/06/15 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 4155
§ 159.001-7 Substituted procedures. ( a ) The Commandant may substitute the procedures in this part for the procedures in any other part of this subchapter. Each person known to be affected by the substitution shall be informed that the procedures in this part apply.
( b ) [Reserved]
<PAGE>


                                                                      EXHIBIT 23


The Board of Directors
Integrated Systems Consulting Group, Inc.

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement No.
333-05473 on Form S-8 of Integrated Systems Consulting Group, Inc. of our report
dated January 23, 1998, except as to note 14, which is as of February 27, 1998,
relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Integrated Systems Consulting
Group, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1997 and 1996, and the related
consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity and cash flows for
each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 1997, and related
schedule, which report appears in the December 31, 1997 annual report on Form
10-K of Integrated Systems Consulting Group, Inc.



KPMG Peat Marwick LLP

Philadelphia, PA
March 27, 1998
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Mark Wilhelm

, * From the 161st District

Court of Ector County,

Trial Court No. B

- 37,085

.

Vs. No. 11

- 13

- 00358

- CR * May 22, 2014

T he State of Texas, * Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

(Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson, J. , and Bailey, J. )

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that the appeal

should be dismissed. Therefore, in accordance with this court ’ s opinion, the appeal

is dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          32,846
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   15,581
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               135,035
<PP&E>                                       3,517,135
<DEPRECIATION>                                  88,760
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,569,410
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          125,903
<BONDS>                                      3,490,419
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            50
<OTHER-SE>                                    (66,962)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,569,410
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               735,863
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  551,601
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             332,336
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (139,412)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (139,412)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (139,412)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.28)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.28)
        

</TABLE>