alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2011113EN.01001901.xml

| 9.4.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 113/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.4.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 113/19

---

Action brought on 15 February 2011 — Stichting Corporate Europe Observatory v Commission

(Case T-93/11)

2011/C 113/37

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Stichting Corporate Europe Observatory (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: S. Crosby, Solicitor, and S. Santoro, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | find that the Commission Decision of 6 December 2010 in procedure GESTDEM 2009/2508 infringes Regulation No 1049/2001 (1) and annul it accordingly; and |
| --- | --- |

—

find that the Commission Decision of 6 December 2010 in procedure GESTDEM 2009/2508 infringes Regulation No 1049/2001 (1) and annul it accordingly; and

1

| — | order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Article 87 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Article 87 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

By means of his application the applicant seeks, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, the annulment of the Commission Decision of 6 December 2010 in procedure GESTDEM 2009/2508 refusing to allow full access to several documents relating to the trade negotiations between the EU and India, pursuant to Regulation No 1049/2001.

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law, alleging misapplication of Article 4(1)(a) third indent of Regulation No 1049/2001, as the international relations exception is inapplicable in this case because all the documents requested are in the public domain.

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43

1

---
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

STEVEN SANTOS,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 14-11648

v.

Hon. John Corbett O’Meara

THE CITY OF WESTLAND, et al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

ORDER OF PARTIAL DISMISSAL

Plaintiff Steven Santos filed this action against the City of Westland and

seven individual Westland police officers. The complaint states the following

claims: Count I, violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against the individual defendants;

Count II, gross negligence; Count III, violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against the

City of Westland; Count IV, false arrest; Count V, assault and battery; Count VI,

false imprisonment; and Count VII, malicious prosecution. Plaintiff does not

allege the existence of diversity jurisdiction.

Although violations of the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 are cognizable in this court

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the remaining allegations present claims based on

state law. This court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s

state law claims so as to avoid jury confusion and because the state claims

5:14-cv-11648-JCO-PJK Doc # 7 Filed 06/12/14 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 48
predominate. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c); United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S.

715 (1966); Padilla v. City of Saginaw, 867 F. Supp. 1309 (E.D. Mich. 1994).

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Counts II, IV, V, VI, and VII of

Plaintiff’s complaint are DISMISSED.

s/John Corbett O’Meara 

United States District Judge

Date: June 12, 2014

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

counsel of record on this date, June 12, 2014, using the ECF system.

s/William Barkholz 

Case Manager

-2-

5:14-cv-11648-JCO-PJK Doc # 7 Filed 06/12/14 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 49
<PAGE>   1

EXHIBIT 11 - STATEMENTS RE:  COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS


                      GATEWAY BANCSHARES, INC. & SUBSIDIARY
                   COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER COMMON SHARE

The following tabulation presents the calculation of basic and dilutive earnings
(loss) per common share for the year ended December 31, 1997, 1996 and period
from July 11, 1995 to December 31, 1995.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                              1997            1996            1995
                                                           ---------       ---------       ---------
<S>                                                        <C>             <C>             <C>
Reported net loss ...................................      $(273,739)      $(131,833)      $  (1,757)

Earnings (loss) on common shares - basic and dilutive      $    (.40)      $    (.19)      $    (.01)
                                                           =========       =========       =========

Weighted average common shares outstanding ..........      $ 679,048       $ 679,048       $ 679,048
                                                           =========       =========       =========
</TABLE>
# C_2019044EN.01005501.xml

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/55

---

Order of the General Court of 25 October 2018 — Biogas Nord Anlagenbau v Commission

(Case T-629/11) (1)

((State aid - German tax legislation concerning the possibility of carrying losses forward to future tax years (Sanierungsklausel) - Decision declaring aid incompatible with the internal market - Annulment of the contested measure by the Court - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate))

(2019/C 44/70)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Biogas Nord Anlagenbau GmbH (Bielefeld, Germany) (represented by: C. Birkenmeyer, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially, R. Lyal, T. Maxian Rusche and M. Adam, then, R. Lyal, T. Maxian Rusche and K. Blanck, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: initially T. Henze, K. Petersen and R. Kanitz, then, T. Henze, R. Kanitz and K. Stranz and finally, T. Henze, R. Kanitz and S. Eisenberg, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Commission Decision 2011/527/EU of 26 January 2011 on State aid C 7/10 (ex CP 250/09 and NN 5/10) implemented by Germany — Scheme for the carry-forward of tax losses in the case of restructuring of companies in difficulty (Sanierungsklausel) (OJ 2011 L 235, p. 26).

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. | The European Commission is ordered to pay its own costs as well as those incurred by Biogas Nord Anlagenbau GmbH; |
| --- | --- |

2.

The European Commission is ordered to pay its own costs as well as those incurred by Biogas Nord Anlagenbau GmbH;

| 3. | The Federal Republic of Germany is ordered to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Federal Republic of Germany is ordered to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 49, 18.2.2012.

---
Argued at Pendleton October 29,

affirmed December 10, 1918.

#### WARD *v.*SEAWEARD.

(176 Pac. 422.)

Waters and Watercourses — Flowage — Ditches — Injunction — Injury-Caused by Plaintiff’s Act.

1. If plaintiff willfully stopped up drainage ditch used by defendant, thereby necessitating and producing injury to his own land, when waste water from defendant’s irrigation operations escaped and flowed over it, plaintiff could not restrain defendant from permitting such escape.

[As to land owners’ rights to protect themselves by dams, levees and other means, see note in 97 Am. Dec. 565.]

From Malheur: Dalton Biggs, Judge.

In Banc.

This is a suit by‘John A. Ward against J. H. Seaweard. From a decree for plaintiff, defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

For appellant there was a brief and an oral argument by *Mr. C. McGonagill.*

For respondent there was a brief with oral arguments by *Messrs. McCulloch & Wood.*

McBRIDE, C. J.

1. This is a suit to restrain defendant from permitting the waste water from his irrigating operations from escaping and flowing over and upon plaintiff’s land to the injury of said premises.

The answer is a general denial, a plea of a prescriptive right to flow the same, as defendant claims he has been accustomed to do for the past fifteen years, and a plea that plaintiff and another had willfully stopped the drainage ditch used by defendant, thereby necessitating and producing the injury complained of. There are no new propositions of law involved. Each defense urged is legitimate and if supported by the testi*274mony would bar tbe relief sought by the plaintiff in this suit. The court below found in favor of plaintiff on the issues presented and we have therefore to consider the case upon the facts disclosed by the testimony, which we have read, re-read and carefully considered. We are of the opinion after such examination that the findings of the court below are correct and that the decree should be affirmed. A detailed statement of the testimony would be of no value and is therefore omitted.

Decree affirmed.

Haréis, J., absent.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Peter E. Williams, Chief Financial Officer of Saba Software, Inc. (the “Company”) hereby certify, as of the date hereof, solely for purposes ofSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge: 

 

(1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the fiscal quarter ended August 31, 2005 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and 

 

(2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company at the dates and for the periods indicated. 

 

This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, “filed” with theSecurities and Exchange Commission. 

 

Date: October 14, 2005
15-10699

Denise Page Hood

2:15-cv-10699-DPH-APP Doc # 5 Filed 05/21/15 Pg 1 of 31 Pg ID 56
2:15-cv-10699-DPH-APP Doc # 5 Filed 05/21/15 Pg 2 of 31 Pg ID 57
2:15-cv-10699-DPH-APP Doc # 5 Filed 05/21/15 Pg 3 of 31 Pg ID 58
2:15-cv-10699-DPH-APP Doc # 5 Filed 05/21/15 Pg 4 of 31 Pg ID 59
2:15-cv-10699-DPH-APP Doc # 5 Filed 05/21/15 Pg 5 of 31 Pg ID 60
2:15-cv-10699-DPH-APP Doc # 5 Filed 05/21/15 Pg 6 of 31 Pg ID 61
2:15-cv-10699-DPH-APP Doc # 5 Filed 05/21/15 Pg 7 of 31 Pg ID 62
2:15-cv-10699-DPH-APP Doc # 5 Filed 05/21/15 Pg 8 of 31 Pg ID 63
2:15-cv-10699-DPH-APP Doc # 5 Filed 05/21/15 Pg 9 of 31 Pg ID 64
2:15-cv-10699-DPH-APP Doc # 5 Filed 05/21/15 Pg 10 of 31 Pg ID 65
2:15-cv-10699-DPH-APP Doc # 5 Filed 05/21/15 Pg 11 of 31 Pg ID 66
2:15-cv-10699-DPH-APP Doc # 5 Filed 05/21/15 Pg 12 of 31 Pg ID 67
2:15-cv-10699-DPH-APP Doc # 5 Filed 05/21/15 Pg 13 of 31 Pg ID 68
2:15-cv-10699-DPH-APP Doc # 5 Filed 05/21/15 Pg 14 of 31 Pg ID 69
2:15-cv-10699-DPH-APP Doc # 5 Filed 05/21/15 Pg 15 of 31 Pg ID 70
2:15-cv-10699-DPH-APP Doc # 5 Filed 05/21/15 Pg 16 of 31 Pg ID 71
2:15-cv-10699-DPH-APP Doc # 5 Filed 05/21/15 Pg 17 of 31 Pg ID 72
2:15-cv-10699-DPH-APP Doc # 5 Filed 05/21/15 Pg 18 of 31 Pg ID 73
2:15-cv-10699-DPH-APP Doc # 5 Filed 05/21/15 Pg 19 of 31 Pg ID 74
2:15-cv-10699-DPH-APP Doc # 5 Filed 05/21/15 Pg 20 of 31 Pg ID 75
2:15-cv-10699-DPH-APP Doc # 5 Filed 05/21/15 Pg 21 of 31 Pg ID 76
2:15-cv-10699-DPH-APP Doc # 5 Filed 05/21/15 Pg 22 of 31 Pg ID 77
2:15-cv-10699-DPH-APP Doc # 5 Filed 05/21/15 Pg 23 of 31 Pg ID 78
2:15-cv-10699-DPH-APP Doc # 5 Filed 05/21/15 Pg 24 of 31 Pg ID 79
2:15-cv-10699-DPH-APP Doc # 5 Filed 05/21/15 Pg 25 of 31 Pg ID 80
Dated: May 21, 2015

2:15-cv-10699-DPH-APP Doc # 5 Filed 05/21/15 Pg 26 of 31 Pg ID 81
2:15-cv-10699-DPH-APP Doc # 5 Filed 05/21/15 Pg 27 of 31 Pg ID 82
2:15-cv-10699-DPH-APP Doc # 5 Filed 05/21/15 Pg 28 of 31 Pg ID 83
2:15-cv-10699-DPH-APP Doc # 5 Filed 05/21/15 Pg 29 of 31 Pg ID 84
2:15-cv-10699-DPH-APP Doc # 5 Filed 05/21/15 Pg 30 of 31 Pg ID 85
2:15-cv-10699-DPH-APP Doc # 5 Filed 05/21/15 Pg 31 of 31 Pg ID 86
January 28, 2015 

Page 1 

Rebecca E. Bell-Stanton 

Partner rbell@feesmith.com

972-980-3262 Direct Dial 

January 28, 2015 

Via E-Filing 

Christopher Prine 

Clerk, First Court of Appeals 

301 Fannin, 2nd Floor 

Houston, Texas 77002

 Re: Case No. 01-15-00068-CV; In Re Sunbelt Rentals, Inc. 

Our File No.: SBR.5539 

Mr. Prine: 

 Please allow this correspondence to advise the Court Relator Sunbelt Rentals, Inc. will be 

filing a Reply Memorandum in Support of its Motion for Temporary Relief this afternoon. 

Additionally, Relator will be filing a formal Reply Brief to the Response last evening and intend 

to file same no later than Monday, February 2, 2015. 

 Thank you for your attention to this matter. 

Very truly yours, 

 FEE, SMITH, SHARP & VITULLO, L.L.P. 

 Rebecca E. Bell-Stanton 

cc: Scott Hooper (Via E-Service and Electronic Mail) 

John H. Kim (Via E-Service and Electronic Mail) 

ACCEPTED

01-15-00068-CV

FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

1/28/2015 12:04:23 PM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK

 FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 1/28/2015 12:04:23 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
# C_2011139EN.01002201.xml

| 7.5.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 139/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 139/22

---

Appeal brought on 18 February 2011 by the European Training Foundation (ETF) against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 9 December 2010 in Case F-88/08 Vandeuren v ETF

(Case T-108/11 P)

2011/C 139/41

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellant: European Training Foundation (ETF) (represented by L. Levi, lawyer)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Monique Vandeuren (Pino Torinese, Italy)

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought by the appellant

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant contends that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal of 9 December 2010 in Case F-88/08, |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal of 9 December 2010 in Case F-88/08,

| — | consequently, dismiss the action brought at first instance and, therefore, |
| --- | --- |

—

consequently, dismiss the action brought at first instance and, therefore,

| — | order the respondent to the appeal to pay the entire costs at first instance and on appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the respondent to the appeal to pay the entire costs at first instance and on appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments relied upon by the appellant are identical to those relied upon in Case T-107/11 P ETF v Schuerings.

ETF

Schuerings

---
#### Lester W. Babcock, *Respondent, v.*The New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, *Appellant*.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, costs to abide event. Held, that the judge erred in charging the jury that they might give exem plary damages.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                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 Quarterly Report of MyCom Group, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Earnest
Mathis, Jr., Chief Executive Officer and Director 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:

     (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 operations
          of the Company.

Date:    May 14, 2007
                                                     /s/ Earnest Mathis, Jr.
                                                     -----------------------
                                                     Earnest Mathis, Jr.,
                                                     Chief Executive Officer and
                                                     Director
**EXHIBIT 32.2****Section 1350 Certification**     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, theundersigned officer of Nextera Enterprises, Inc. (the “Company”) hereby certifies, to suchofficer’s knowledge, that:     (i) the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly periodended June 30, 2006 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) orSection 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Act of 1934, as amended; and     (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly represents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.Date:August 11, 2006         By: /s/ Michael P. Muldowney           Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer  (Principal Financial Officer)The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether madebefore or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
Exhibit 32.1

                            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 Quarterly Report of Artificial Life, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Eberhard Schoeneburg,
Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (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 result of operations of
          the Company.

                            /s/ Eberhard Schoeneburg

                              Eberhard Schoeneburg
                           Chief Executive Officer and
                           Principal Financial Officer

May 15, 2006
§ 190.05-10 Chemical storeroom and lamp room construction. ( a ) Chemical storerooms, lamp, paint, and oil lockers and similar compartments shall be constructed of steel or shall be wholly lined with metal.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2236 

To prohibit health insurance companies from denying individual health insurance coverage or from discriminating in benefits under such coverage 

because of the receipt of grief counseling. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 4, 2009 

Mrs. HALVORSON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To prohibit health insurance companies from denying individual health insurance coverage or from discriminating 

in benefits under such coverage because of the receipt 

of grief counseling. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Grieving Families In5 surance Protection Act of 2009’’. 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2236 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITING DENIAL OF HEALTH INSURANCE COV2 ERAGE OR DISCRIMINATION IN BENEFITS 

3 UNDER THE COVERAGE BECAUSE OF RE4 CEIPT OF GRIEF COUNSELING. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Title XXVII of the Public Health 

6 Service Act is amended by inserting after section 2745 the 

7 following new section: 

8 ‘‘SEC. 2746. PROHIBITION ON DENIAL OF HEALTH INSUR9 ANCE COVERAGE AND DISCRIMINATION IN 

10 BENEFITS BECAUSE OF RECEIPT OF GRIEF 

11 COUNSELING. 

12 ‘‘A health insurance issuer offering health insurance 

13 coverage in the individual market may not— 

14 ‘‘(1) establish or maintain rules for eligibility 

15 (including continued eligibility) of any individual to 

16 enroll under the terms of the coverage based on any 

17 individual’s receipt of grief counseling at any time; 

18 or 

19 ‘‘(2) reduce the benefits covered (or offered for 

20 coverage) on such basis.’’. 

21 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

22 subsection (a) shall apply with respect to health insurance 

23 coverage offered, sold, issued, renewed, in effect, or oper24 ated in the individual health insurance market on or after 

25 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
§ 168.05-1 Application of passenger vessel inspection laws. ( a ) All laws covering the inspection of passenger vessels are hereby made applicable to all vessels or other floating equipment used by or in connection with any civilian nautical school, whether such vessels or other floating equipment are being navigated or not, except vessels of the Navy or Coast Guard.
§ 190.10-30 Dead end corridors. ( a ) Dead end corridors, or the equivalent, more than 40 feet in length shall not be permitted.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

Dallas Buyers Club, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 14-11653

Does 1-15, Sean F. Cox

United States District Court Judge

Defendants.

_________________________________/

ORDER DISMISSING CASE 

FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

Plaintiff filed this action against Defendants Does 1-15 on April 25, 2014. As of July 9,

2014, the docket reflected that no Defendants have been served. As such, this Court issued an

Order to Show Cause on July 9, 2014 (Docket Entry No. 5) wherein the Court ordered Plaintiff

to show cause, in writing, on or before December 4, 2014, why this case should not be dismissed

for failure to prosecute.

Plaintiff has not responded to the Order and the time permitted for doing so has expired. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

S/Sean F. Cox 

Sean F. Cox

United States District Judge

Dated: December 17, 2014

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

1

2:14-cv-11653-SFC-PJK Doc # 7 Filed 12/17/14 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 46
December 17, 2014, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/Jennifer McCoy 

Case Manager

2

2:14-cv-11653-SFC-PJK Doc # 7 Filed 12/17/14 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 47