alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2013313EN.01002502.xml

| 26.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 313/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/25

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2013 — De Nicola v EIB

(Case T-618/11 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Civil service - EIB staff - Appraisal - Promotion - 2008 appraisal and promotion period - Decision of the Appeals Committee - Scope of review - Assessment report - Plea of illegality - Reasonable period - Claim for setting aside - Claim for damages - Lis pendens)

2013/C 313/50

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Carlo De Nicola (Strassen, Luxembourg) (represented by: L. Isola, lawyer)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Investment Bank (EIB) (represented by: initially by T. Gilliams and F. Martin, and subsequently by Gilliams and G. Nuvoli, acting as Agents, and by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) in Case F-13/10 De Nicola v EIB, not yet published in the ECR, seeking the setting aside of that judgment.

De Nicola

EIB

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) in Case F-13/10 De Nicola v EIB, in so far as it rejects Mr Carlo De Nicola’s claim seeking the annulment of the decision of the Appeals Committee of the European Investment Bank (EIB); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) in Case F-13/10 De Nicola v EIB, in so far as it rejects Mr Carlo De Nicola’s claim seeking the annulment of the decision of the Appeals Committee of the European Investment Bank (EIB);

| 2. | Dismisses the remainder of the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the remainder of the appeal;

| 3. | Dismisses the action brought by Mr De Nicola before the Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-13/10; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Dismisses the action brought by Mr De Nicola before the Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-13/10;

| 4. | Orders Mr De Nicola to bear his own costs and half of the costs incurred by the EIB relating to the proceedings at first instance and on appeal; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders Mr De Nicola to bear his own costs and half of the costs incurred by the EIB relating to the proceedings at first instance and on appeal;

| 5. | Orders the EIB to bear half of its own costs relating to the proceedings at first instance and on appeal. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Orders the EIB to bear half of its own costs relating to the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.

---

(1)  OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.

1

---
##### 



Exhibit 31.2 CERTIFICATION of Chief Financial Officer of Penhall International Corp. I, Jeffrey E. Platt, certify that:  (1)
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Penhall International Corp. (the Company)(2)
    
    Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances
under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
quarterly report;(3)
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this
quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly
report;(4)
    
    The Companys other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining
disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15e and 15d-15e for the
Company and we have:  (a)
    
    designed such disclosure controls and
procedures, or caused such disclosure controls
and procedures to be designed under our
supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the Company, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us
by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being
prepared;(b)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the Companys
disclosure controls and procedures and presented
in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and
procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and(c)
    
    disclosed in this report any change in the
Companys internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the Companys
most recent fiscal that has materially affected,
or is reasonably likely to materially affect,
the Companys internal control over financial
reporting; and  (5)
    
    The Companys other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of
internal control over financial reporting, to the Companys auditors and the audit committee of the
Companys board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):  (a)
    
    all significant deficiencies and material
weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the
Companys ability to record, process, summarize
and report financial information; and(b)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that
involves management or other employees who have
a significant role in the Companys internal
controls over financial reporting. May 17, 2004 /s/ JEFFREY E. PLATT Jeffrey E. Platt
Vice President-Finance and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)
# C_2012025EN.01006902.xml

| 28.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 25/69 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 25/69

---

Action brought on 24 October 2011 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-108/11)

(2012/C 25/133)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: A. Fratini and F. Filpo, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

The annulment of the decision of the Selection Board not to admit the applicant to the open competition EPSO/AD/198/10, due to the alleged non fulfilment of the professional experience requirements.

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the EPSO decision not to admit the applicant to the open competition EPSO/AD/198/10; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the EPSO decision not to admit the applicant to the open competition EPSO/AD/198/10;

| — | order the Commission to take all consequent measures in order to put the applicant in a position similar to the one he would be in, had he been admitted to the competition; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to take all consequent measures in order to put the applicant in a position similar to the one he would be in, had he been admitted to the competition;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

---
#### § 167.05-5 Approved.

This term means approved by the Commandant unless otherwise stated.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                             191
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      206
<ALLOWANCES>                                        82
<INVENTORY>                                         24
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   452
<PP&E>                                           5,836
<DEPRECIATION>                                     682
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   7,156
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              391
<BONDS>                                          2,436
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             3
<OTHER-SE>                                       3,647
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     7,156
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   748
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      547
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    71
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    13
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  29
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     90
<INCOME-TAX>                                        42
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 47
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            2
<NET-INCOME>                                        45
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.15
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.15
        

</TABLE>
* Pursua nt to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED

August 16, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 04-41079

_____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

SEALED APPELLANT 1,

Defendant - Appellant.

______________________ ____________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Beaumont

USDC No. 1:03-CR-67-12-RHC

_________________________________________________________________
Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The plea agreement in this case did not bar the instant appeal

because of representations ma de in open court that were

inco nsistent with the written agreement. Consequently, we will

review the Booker error that was preserved at sentencing.

It is evident that the sentence, which was imposed under a

mandatory guidelines regime, constituted a Sixth Amendment

violation under the teachings of United States v. Booker

, 125 S.Ct.

738 (2005). Because Sealed Appellant 1 preserved this error in the

district court, the question before us is whether the error was2

harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. S ee United States v. Pineiro

,

4 10 F.3d 282, 284 (5 t h Cir. 2005). We hold that the error was

harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because even if the error were

cured, the sentence would be the same. We say this because the

district court made this point explicitly clear when it said:

The court will also note that in th e event that a higher court rules that the Sentencing Guidelines, as some courts out west have ruled, are completely invalid, that in that

case, the court would impose the same sentence basically for the reasons set out since the
statutory provisions are up to 20 years, and this is within that amount. Based on the

amount of drugs involved, based upon the criminal h istory, based upon his role in the conspiracy, the court would find that, in its discretion, the same sentence of 86 months would be appropriate.

Based o n the above statement, we find the error harmless

beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the sentence is

AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit
      32.1**




**CERTIFICATION
      OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AND EXCHANGE ACT RULES 13a-14(b)
      AND 15d-14(b)**




**(Section 906
      of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)**




In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of China Bio Energy Holdings Group Co.,
      Ltd. on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008, as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of
      the undersigned does hereby 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 his or her knowledge and belief:




(1)
      the
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




(2)
      the
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of the operation of the
      Company.




August
      14, 2008




By:
            /s/ Gao XinchengGao
                Xincheng
              Chief
                Executive Officer




By:
            /s/ Li GaihongLi
                Gaihong
              Chief
                Financial Officer
Editorial Note on Part 160
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 160 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59785, 59786, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 160.156-21 Operation and maintenance instructions. ( a ) In order to comply with SOLAS, each rescue boat must have operation and maintenance instructions that— ( 1 ) Follows the general format and content specified in MSC.1 Circ. 1205 (incorporated by reference, see § 160.156-5 of this subpart); and
( 2 ) Includes a checklist for use in monthly, external inspections of the rescue boat.
( b ) The rescue boat manufacturer must make the manual required by paragraph (a) of this section available in English to purchasers of a rescue boat approved by the Coast Guard.
( c ) The operation and maintenance instructions required by paragraph (a) of this section may be combined with similar material for survival craft and rescue boats, and their launching systems.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2053 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.2053

                      One Hundred Eleventh Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
             the sixth day of January, two thousand and nine

                                 An Act

 
To designate the United States courthouse located at 525 Magoffin Avenue 
   in El Paso, Texas, as the ``Albert Armendariz, Sr., United States 
                              Courthouse''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.
    The United States courthouse located at 525 Magoffin Avenue in El 
Paso, Texas, shall be known and designated as the ``Albert Armendariz, 
Sr., United States Courthouse''.
SEC. 2. REFERENCES.
    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the United States courthouse referred to 
in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Albert 
Armendariz, Sr., United States Courthouse''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
# C_2013032EN.01001801.xml

| 2.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 32/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 32/18

---

Order of the General Court of 6 December 2012 — Spa Monopole v OHIM — Royal Mediterranea (THAI SPA)

(Case T-664/11) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Limitation of services covered by the Community trade mark application - No need to adjudicate)

2013/C 32/28

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Spa Monopole, compagnie fermière de Spa SA/NV (Spa, Belgium) (represented by: L. de Brouwer, E. Cornu and É. De Gryse, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Royal Mediterranea, SA (Madrid, Spain)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 October 2011 (Case R 1976/2010-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Spa Monopole, compagnie fermière de Spa SA/NV and Royal Mediterranea, SA.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

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

1.

There is no need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | Each party shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Each party shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 65, 3.3.2012.

1

---
#### John Clare, *Respondent, v.*The Brooklyn City Railroad Company, *Appellants*.

Judgment and order denying new trial affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Dykman, J.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, CRIMINAL NO. 14-30493

vs. 

KAI XU,

Defendant.

_____________________________________/

INDEX OF EXHIBITS TO MOTION FOR 

REVOCATION OF DETENTION ORDER

Exhibit One: Order of Detention Pending Trial

Exhibit Two: Transcript of Detention Hearing, September 26, 2014

5:14-cr-20804-JCO-DRG Doc # 11-1 Filed 10/15/14 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 34
# C_2014078EN.01000801.xml

| 15.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 78/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78/8

---

Judgment of the General Court of 4 February 2014 — Mega Brands v OHIM — Diset (MAGNEXT)

(Joined Cases T-604/11 and T-292/12) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark MAGNEXT and word mark MAGNEXT - Earlier national word mark MAGNET 4 - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2014/C 78/15

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Mega Brands International, Luxembourg, Zweigniederlassung Zug (Zug, Switzerland) [represented by: A. Nordemann, lawyer (Case T-604/11) and T. Boddien, lawyer (Case T-292/12)]

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: V. Melgar, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Diset, SA (Barcelona, Spain)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Re:

Re:

Two actions brought against the decisions of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 September 2011 (Case R 1695/2010-4) and of 24 April 2012 (Case R 1722/2011-4) concerning two sets of opposition proceedings between Diset SA and Mega Brands International, Luxembourg, Zweigniederlassung Zug.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Orders that Cases T-604/11 and T-292/12 be joined for the purposes of judgment; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Orders that Cases T-604/11 and T-292/12 be joined for the purposes of judgment;

| 2. | Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 27 September 2011 (Case R 1695/2010-4) in Case T-604/11; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 27 September 2011 (Case R 1695/2010-4) in Case T-604/11;

| 3. | Dismisses the action in Case T-604/11 as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Dismisses the action in Case T-604/11 as to the remainder;

| 4. | Dismisses the action in Case T-292/12; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Dismisses the action in Case T-292/12;

| 5. | Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mega Brands International, Luxembourg, Zweigniederlassung Zug in Case T-604/11; |
| --- | --- |

5.

Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mega Brands International, Luxembourg, Zweigniederlassung Zug in Case T-604/11;

| 6. | Orders Mega Brands International, Luxembourg, Zweigniederlassung Zug to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by OHIM in Case T-292/12. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Orders Mega Brands International, Luxembourg, Zweigniederlassung Zug to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by OHIM in Case T-292/12.

---

(1)  OJ C 32, 4.2.2012.

1

---
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

 
 

Exhibit 10.14.2    
    


Gentium S.p.A.

Piazza XX Settembre, 2-22079

Villa Guardia (CO) Italy  


February 23,
2004 


Dr. Roberto
Marchioli

Laboratory of Clinical Epidemiology of Cardiovascular Disease

Consorzio Mario Negri Sud

Via Nazionale

66030 Santa Maria Imbaro CH 


Dear
Dr. Marchioli, 


        by
the present we confirm the extension of the engagement of your Institute for the study "Defibrotide for the treatment of Hepatic Veno-occlusive Disease after Stem Cell
Transplantation (DF-VOD Trial)" for a further period of two years. The study will therefore end in 2006. 


        As
compensation for your engagement Gentium S.p.A. will pay a compensation of euros 50,000.00 per year + VAT, which will be paid in two annual installments of euros
25,000.00 each (April and September) upon presentation of a tax compliant document. 


        We
look therefore to receiving from you the first invoice of euros 25,000.00 + VAT relevant to the first installments of 2004. 



	Best regards	 	 
	

/s/  Laura Iris Ferro      
 Dr. Laura Iris Ferro

President	
 	

 













QuickLinks



Exhibit 10.14.2
# C_2011179EN.01002202.xml

| 18.6.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.6.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/22

---

Action brought on 5 April 2011 — ZZ v Parliament

(Case F-38/11)

2011/C 179/38

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision not to promote in the 2009 promotion exercise the applicant, who was transferred on 1 September 2009 from the Court of Justice of the European Union to the European Parliament

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Parliament of 4 January 2011 to reject the applicant’s complaint against the decision not to promote him to grade AD7 in the 2009 promotion exercise; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Parliament of 4 January 2011 to reject the applicant’s complaint against the decision not to promote him to grade AD7 in the 2009 promotion exercise;

| — | As necessary, annul the decision of the Parliament not to promote him to grade AD7 in the 2009 promotion exercise; |
| --- | --- |

—

As necessary, annul the decision of the Parliament not to promote him to grade AD7 in the 2009 promotion exercise;

| — | order the European Parliament to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

---