alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2012331EN.01002402.xml

| 27.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/24

---

Order of the General Court of 6 September 2012 — Rautenbach v Council and Commission

(Case T-222/11) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted having regard to the situation in Zimbabwe - Withdrawal from the list of persons concerned - Action for annulment - No need to adjudicate)

(2012/C 331/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Muller Conrad Rautenbach (Harare, Zimbabwe) (represented by: S. Smith QC, M. Lester, Barrister, and W. Osmond, Solicitor)

Defendants: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen and J. Herrmann, acting as Agents) and European Commission (represented by E. Paasivirta, M. Konstantinidis and T. Scharf, acting as Agents)

Re:

ACTION for the annulment of Council Decision 2011/101/CFSP of 15 February 2011 concerning restrictive measures against Zimbabwe (OJ 2011 L 42, p. 6), and of Commission Regulation (EU) No 174/2011 of 23 February 2011 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 314/2004 concerning certain restrictive measures in respect of Zimbabwe (OJ 2011 L 49, p. 23), in so far as they concern the applicant.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no need to adjudicate on this action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no need to adjudicate on this action.

| 2. | The Council of the European Union shall bear, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by Muller Conrad Rautenbach. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Council of the European Union shall bear, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by Muller Conrad Rautenbach.

| 3. | The European Commission shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The European Commission shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 186, 25.6.2011.

---
§ 168.15-30 Toilet rooms. ( a ) There must be provided 1 toilet for each 10 persons or fraction thereof to be accommodated who do not occupy rooms to which private facilities are attached.
( b ) The toilet rooms must be located convenient to the sleeping quarters of the persons to which they are allotted but must not open directly into such quarters except when they are provided as private or semiprivate facilities.
( c ) Where more than 1 toilet is located in a space or compartment, each toilet must be separated by partitions.
§ 190.20-25 Washrooms and toilet rooms. ( a ) There must be provided at least 1 toilet, 1 washbasin, and 1 shower or bathtub for each 8 members or portion thereof in the crew to be accommodated who do not occupy rooms to which private or semi-private facilities are attached.
( b ) The toilet rooms and washrooms must be located convenient to the sleeping quarters of the crew to which they are allotted but must not open directly into such quarters except when they are provided as private or semi-private facilities.
( c ) All washbasins, showers, and bathtubs must be equipped with adequate plumbing, including hot and cold running water. All toilets must be installed with adequate plumbing for flushing. Where more than 1 toilet is located in a space or compartment, each toilet must be separated by partitions.
#### § 132.320 Helicopter-landing decks.

Each vessel with a helicopter-landing deck must meet the fire fighting requirements of part 108 of this chapter.
**EXHIBIT32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with thequarterly report of TorreyPines Therapeutics, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the period ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Neil M. Kurtz, M.D., President and ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350,as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that tomy knowledge:

1.             the Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.             the information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.
|   |   | /s/ Neil M. Kurtz, M.D.                |
|--------|--------|----------------------------------------|
|   |   | Neil M. Kurtz, M.D.                    |
|   |   | President and Chief  Executive Officer |
|   |   | (Principal Executive  Officer)         |

November 14, 2007

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating,acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed formwithin the electronic version of this written statement required by Section906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

“This certificationaccompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by referenceinto any filing of the registrant under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended,or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before orafter the date of the Form 10-Q), irrespective of any general incorporationlanguage contained in such filing.”

----
§ 176.204 Permit to carry excursion party. ( a ) The cognizant OCMI may permit a vessel to engage in a temporary excursion operation with a greater number of persons or on a more extended route, or both, than permitted by its Certificate of Inspection when, in the opinion of the OCMI, the operation can be undertaken safely.
( b ) Upon the written application of the owner or managing operator of the vessel, the cognizant OCMI may issue a Form CG-949, “Permit To Carry Excursion Party,” to indicate his or her permission to carry an excursion party. The OCMI will indicate on the permit the conditions under which it is issued, the number of persons the vessel may carry, the crew required, any additional lifesaving or safety equipment required, the route for which the permit is granted, and the dates on which the permit is valid.
( c ) The number of passengers normally permitted on an excursion vessel shall be governed by § 176.113.
( d ) The OCMI will not normally waive the applicable minimum safety standards when issuing an excursion permit. In particular, a vessel that is being issued an excursion permit will normally be required to meet the minimum stability, survival craft, life jacket, fire safety, and manning standards applicable to a vessel in the service for which the excursion permit is requested.
( e ) The permit acts as a temporary, limited duration supplement to the vessel's Certificate of Inspection and must be carried with the Certificate of Inspection. A vessel operating under a permit to carry an excursion party must be in full compliance with the terms of its Certificate of Inspection as supplemented by the permit.
( f ) The OCMI may require an inspection prior to the issuance of a permit to carry an excursion party.
Exhibit 99.1

                              BANK ONE, TEXAS, N.A.
                  Annual Officer's Certificate of the Servicer
                       Banc One Auto Grantor Trust 1996-A


         The undersigned, a duly authorized representative of Bank One, Texas,
N.A., as Servicer (the "Servicer"), pursuant to Section 3.10 of the Pooling and
Servicing Agreement dated as of March 1, 1996 (the "Agreement") between the
Servicer and The Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A., as trustee (the "Trustee"), does
hereby certify as follows:

         (1)      All terms used herein that are defined in the Agreement shall
                  have the meanings provided in the Agreement, unless otherwise
                  defined herein.

         (2)      The undersigned is an officer of the Servicer who is duly
                  authorized pursuant to the Agreement to execute and deliver
                  this Certificate.

         (3)      A review of the activities of the Servicer during the period
                  from January 1, 1998 to December 31, 1998 (the "Servicing
                  Period") and its performance under the Agreement has been made
                  under my supervision.

         (4)      Based on such review, the Servicer has, to the best of my
                  knowledge, fulfilled all of its obligations under the
                  Agreement throughout the Servicing Period except as set forth
                  in paragraph (5) below.

         (5)      The following is a brief description of each default in the
                  fulfillment of the Servicer's obligations under the Agreement
                  known to me to have been made by the Servicer during the
                  Servicing Period, which sets forth in detail (i) the nature of
                  each such default and (ii) the current status of each default:
                  NONE.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Servicer has caused this Certificate to be executed by a
duly authorized officer as of the 31st day of December 1998.


                                    Bank One, Texas, N.A., as Servicer



                                    By:    /s/ Tracie H. Klein
                                    --------------------------
                                    Name:  Tracie H. Klein
                                    Title: Vice President
§ 197.515 Permissible exposure limits (PELs). The permissible exposure limits (PELs) for personal exposure are as follows: ( a ) The time-weighted average exposure limit (TWA).
( b ) The short-term exposure limit (STEL). Exposures at the STEL must not be repeated more than four times a day. There must be at least 60 minutes between successive exposures at the STEL.
<PAGE>


                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.92



                                  AMENDMENT TO
                                  EZCORP, INC.
                               2003 INCENTIVE PLAN

         This Amendment dated as of January 15, 2004 is to the EZCORP, Inc. 2003
Incentive Plan effective September 17, 2003 (the "Plan").

         Whereas, the purpose of this Amendment is to increase the maximum
number of shares available under the Plan as approved by the Board of Directors
and the holders of a majority of the shares of Voting Securities as required by
Section 11.2.

         Therefore, Section 2.1 entitled "Maximum Number of Shares" is hereby
replaced and amended in its entirety as follows:

                  2.1      Maximum Number of Shares. Subject to the provisions
                           of Section 2.2 and Section 9, the aggregate number of
                           shares of Stock that may be issued or transferred
                           pursuant to Awards under the Plan shall be 900,000.

Except as otherwise provided herein, the original terms and provisions of the
Plan remain in full force and effect and are incorporated herein by reference
for all practical purposes.

         In Witness hereof, the Corporation, acting by and through its duly
authorized officers, have executed this Amendment to the EZCORP, Inc. 2003
Incentive Plan to be effective as of January 15, 2004.

                                        EZCORP, Inc.
                                        a Delaware corporation


                                        By:  /s/ Daniel N. Tonissen
                                             -----------------------------------
                                                 Daniel N. Tonissen
                                                 Sr. Vice-President
Essex County Circuit Court.

#### SAMUEL COHEN & SON, A CORPORATION, CLAIMANT, PLAINTIFF, v. TUDOR APARTMENTS, INCORPORATED, A CORPORATION, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

For the plaintiff, *Feder & Einzler.*

For the defendant Fidelity Union Title and Mortgage Guaranty Company, *Hood, Laferty & Campbell.*

Smith, J.

This application is made to amend the lien claim by adding Fidelity Union Title and Mortgage Guaranty Company, mortgagee, as a party thereto. In the suit instituted that company is made a defendant as mortgagee, and its lien by way of mortgage is sought to be held subject and subsequent to the lien claimant’s claim.

If I felt it necessary in order to sustain the plaintiff’s case against the 'mortgagee that it should be made a party to the lien claim, I would grant this motion, even though there is some question as to the right to do so under the decision of *American Brick Co.*v. *Drinkhouse,*59 *N. J. L.*462, because it would at least give an opportunity to have the question passed upon by the upper court, but from a reading of section 16 of the Mechanics’ Lien act, it does not seem necessary to make the mortgagee a party to the lien claim. It is sufficient that summons issued against it and it be made a party to the suit on the lien claim as required by section 23 of the act.

On this ground, therefore, the motion will be denied.
# C_2011282EN.01002301.xml

| 24.9.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 282/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.9.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/23

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 15 July 2011 — College of staff representatives of the EIB and Others v Bömcke

(Case T-213/11 P(I)) (1)

1

(Appeal - Civil Service - Application to intervene before the Civil Service Tribunal - Calculation of time limit - Out of time)

2011/C 282/47

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellants: College of staff representatives of the European Investment Bank (Luxembourg, Luxembourg); Jean-Pierre Bodson (Luxembourg); Evangelos Kourgias (Senningerberg, Luxembourg); Manuel Sutil (Nondkeil, France); Patrick Vanhoudt (Gonderange, Luxembourg); Marie-Christel Heger (Luxembourg) (represented by: J. Wilson, A. Senes and B. Entringer, lawyers)

Appellants:

Other party to the proceedings: Eberhard Bömcke (Athus, Belgium) (represented by: D. Lagasse, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the order of the President of the Second Chamber of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union of 17 March 2011 in Case F-95/10 INT Bömcke v EIB, not published in the ECR, seeking to have that order set aside.

Bömcke

EIB

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | The College of staff representatives of the European Investment Bank, Jean-Pierre Bodson, Evangelos Kourgias, Manuel Sutil, Patrick Vanhoudt and Marie-Christel Heger are ordered to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The College of staff representatives of the European Investment Bank, Jean-Pierre Bodson, Evangelos Kourgias, Manuel Sutil, Patrick Vanhoudt and Marie-Christel Heger are ordered to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 152, 21.5.2011.

1

---
#### Ralph S. Pettibone, as Administrator of the Estate of Chauncey S. Pettibone, Deceased, et al., Respondents, *v.*Coridon S. Thomson et al., Defendants, and George T. Loomis, as Receiver of the Property of Coridon S. Thomson, Appellant.

*Pettibone*v. *Thomson,*126 App. Div. 922, affirmed.

(Argued December 2, 1909;

decided December 17, 1909.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered June 11, 1908, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon the report of a referee in an action to foreclose a mortgage on real property.

*Russell J. Stone*for appellant.

*O. H. Hopkins*and *W. E. Hopkins*for respondents.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Gray, Edward T. Bartlett, Haight, Willard Bartlett, Hisoook and Chase, JJ.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 20, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-40144

Conference Calendar 

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MANUELA DELAROSA CIVIL, also known as 

Manuela Delarosa Martinez,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas 

USDC No. 1:03-CR-141-1

--------------------

Before JOLLY, JONES, and WIENER, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Manuela Delarosa Civil (Civil) appeals the sentence imposed

upon her guilty plea to distribution of less than 50 grams of

methamphetamine (meth), in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). 

Civil contends that the district court erred by finding that she

was not entitled to a minor role adjustment in her Sentencing

Guideline offense level pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2.
No. 04-40144

- 2 -

Civil’s contention lacks merit because the unrefuted

evidence shows that she was a key participant in the drugtrafficking transaction for which she was convicted. First,

after Civil received the meth without having to pay for it in

advance, she stored it until she could sell and deliver it. She

sought out a female customer who would take the meth into the

federal prison where her codefendant was incarcerated. When an

undercover agent (UC) telephoned her, Civil readily seized the

opportunity to deal with her. Civil then negotiated the price

for the meth and the time and place for the delivery. Civil

personally delivered the meth to the customer, accepting $2,000

in payment for it. Civil then coached the UC on how to smuggle

the meth into the prison. Finally, Civil admitted that she had

intended to wire the proceeds to the supplier.

Civil argues that she is entitled to the role adjustment

because she was a minor participant in the global offense of drug

distribution in the federal prison. Civil argues that the

district court’s ruling was inconsistent with its penalizing her

two levels for the global conspiracy of bringing drugs into the

prison, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(3).

This lacks merit because the upward adjustment was based on

the evidence that the meth that Civil distributed as charged in

Count II was intended to be smuggled into the prison. A

defendant is not entitled to the minor-participant adjustment if

her sentence is based solely on activity in which she was
No. 04-40144

- 3 -

personally involved, even if her involvement in a larger

conspiracy was minor or minimal. United States v. Garcia,

242 F.3d 593, 598-99, (5th Cir. 2001). Accordingly, the district

court’s finding that Civil was not a minor participant is not

clearly erroneous.

AFFIRMED.
1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 14-cr-20780 

 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

v. 

CURTIS SCOTT, 

 Defendant. 

__________________________________________________________________/

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION FOR EXTENSION (ECF #401) 

 On March 9, 2016, a jury convicted Defendant Curtis Scott of aiding and 

abetting a carjacking, aiding and abetting the use and/or carrying of a firearm during 

a crime of violence, and making a false statement to a federal agent. Sentencing is 

scheduled for September 11, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. On May 24, 2018, Scott requested 

that the Court appoint an investigator to assist him in gathering information for his 

sentencing. (See ECF #389.) In an Order dated May 31, 2018, the Court stated that 

it would consider appointing an investigator if Scott provided certain additional 

information concerning the identity of the investigator, the investigator’s tasks, and 

the budget for the investigator’s services. (See Order, ECF #395.) The Order 

required Scott to file a supplement with the requested information by June 15, 2018. 
2 

(See id.) Scott has now filed a motion seeking an extension of time to file that 

supplement. (See Mot. for Extension, ECF #401.) 

 The Court agrees to grant Scott additional time to comply with the Court’s 

Order dated May 31, 2018. Accordingly, Scott’s motion for an extension is 

GRANTED. Scott shall file the required supplement to his request for investigator 

on or before July 2, 2018. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

/s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: June 14, 2018 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the 

parties and/or counsel of record on June 14, 2018, by electronic means and/or 

ordinary mail. 

 s/Holly A. Monda 

 Case Manager 

 (810) 341-9764
§ 190.20-35 Hospital space. ( a ) Except as specifically modified by paragraph (f) of this section, each vessel which in the ordinary course of its trade makes voyages of more than 3 days duration between ports and which carries a crew of 12 or more, must be provided with a hospital space. This space must be situated with regard to the comfort of the sick so that they may receive proper attention in all weather.
( b ) The hospital must be suitably separated from other spaces and must be used for the care of the sick and for no other purpose.
( c ) The hospital must be fitted with berths in the ratio of 1 berth to every 12 members of the crew or portion thereof who are not berthed in single occupancy rooms, but the number of berths need not exceed 6. Where all single occupancy rooms are provided, the requirement for a separate hospital may be withdrawn, provided that 1 stateroom is fitted with a bunk accessible from both sides.
( d ) [Reserved]
( e ) The hospital must have a toilet, washbasin, and bathtub or shower conveniently situated. Other necessary suitable equipment such as a clothes locker, a table and a seat must be provided.
( f ) On vessels in which the crew is berthed in single occupancy rooms, a hospital space will not be required, provided that 1 room must be designated and fitted with use as a treatment or isolation room. This room must meet the following standards: ( 1 ) The room must be available for immediate medical use; and
( 2 ) A washbasin with hot and cold running water must be installed either in or immediately adjacent to the space and other required sanitary facilities must be conveniently located.
## St at e of Ne w York Supre me Court , Appe llat e D i vi s i on T h i rd J udi cial D e

part me n t Decided and Entered: November 10, 2016 522890

________________________________ THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK ex rel. TALIB ALSAIFULLAH, Appellant, v MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ANTHONY J. ANNUCCI, as Acting Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, Respondent.

________________________________ Calendar Date: September 20, 2016 Before: Garry, J.P., Egan Jr., Rose, Devine and Mulvey, JJ.

__________ Talib Alsaifullah, Coxsackie, appellant pro se.

__________ Appeal from an order and judgment of the Supreme Court (Feldstein, J.), entered January 21, 2016 in Franklin County, which, among other things, denied petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70, without a hearing. Order and judgment affirmed. No opinion. Garry, J.P., Egan Jr., Rose, Devine and Mulvey, JJ., concur.-2- 522890

ORDERED that the order and judgment is affirmed, without costs.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger Clerk of the Court