alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2011282EN.01002402.xml

| 24.9.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 282/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.9.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/24

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 29 July 2011 — HeidelbergCement v Commission

(Case T-302/11 R)

(Interim relief - Competition - Request for information - Article 18(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Application for stay of execution - Lack of urgency)

2011/C 282/51

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: HeidelbergCement AG (Heidelberg, Germany) (represented by: U. Denzel, T. Holzmüller and P. Pichler, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Kellerbauer, R. Sauer and C. Hödlmayr, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for a stay of execution of Commission Decision C(2011) 2363 final of 30 March 2011 concerning a proceeding pursuant to Article 18(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (Case COMP/39.520 — Cement and related products)

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim relief is rejected. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim relief is rejected.

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

2.

Costs are reserved.

---
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  Annual  Report  of  Biometrics2000  Corporation. (the
"Company")  on  Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003 as filed
with  the  Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I,  Joseph J. Turek., Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President (Principal
Executive  Officer)  of  the  Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.   1350, as
adopted  pursuant  to   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/___________
       ---
Joseph  J.  Turek
Chief  Executive  Officer,  Chairman  of  the
Board  of  Directors  and  President
March  30,  2004

<PAGE>
SUPREME COURT.

#### George Stevenson, Guardian, &c., agt. Alexander M. Lesley *et al.*

*N. Y. Special Term,,*

April, 1875.

*Oonstruction of the provisions of a will.*

Where a will grants and devises the estate to trustees, for the testator’s grandchildren, namely, “the children of my son, A. M. L., and the survivors of them, share and share alike, and the children of my daughter, E. J. S., deceased, and the survivors of them, share and share alike, and in the mean time the income of my said estate shall 'he applied to the necessary support, maintenance and education of each of said children under the care of said executors : ”

*Held,*that as an original question, the trust in the will would he void as contravening the statute against perpetuity ; but under the decision of the court of appeals, in *Everett*agt. *Everett*(29 *N. Y.,*39), the trust must be held valid.

The intention of the testator, as evidenced by the will, was to divide Ms ' estate *per stirpes*and not *per capita.*

*Richard O’’ Gorman,*for plaintiff.

*Comers <&*Lymam,, for defendant Lesley.

*Underhill & Ulshoeffer,*for defendant Trimble.

*W. C. Whitney,*attorney and guardian for infant defendants.

Van Brunt, *J*.

This is an action brought to obtain a construction of the will of George Lesley. The will in question contains the following provisions, viz.: All the rest residue of *230my estate, both real and personal, after paying bequests, I give, grant, devise and bequeath to Alexander M. Lesley and Merrett Trimble, both of Hew York, in trust for my grandchildren, namely, the children of my son, Alexander M. Lesley and the survivors of them, share and share alike, and the children of my daughter, Ellen J, Stevenson, deceased, and the survivors of them, share and share alike, to be paid and conveyed to each of said children respectively, as they each become of age, in equal shares, and in the mean time the income of my said estate shall be applied to the necessary support, maintenance and education of each of said children under the care of said executors.”

It is claimed upon the part of the plaintiff that the trust in said will provided is void because it contravenes the statutes, against perpetuity. And, although such would be my construction of the will if it were a novel question, yet the court of appeals having, in the case of *Everett*agt. *Everest*(29 *N. Y.,*39), construed similar provisions, I am compelled to follow that decision, and hold the trust in the will in question to be valid.

The only other question is as to whether the estate is to be divided *per capita*or *per stirpes.*It seems to me that the provision of the will that the children of his son are to share alike, and thus the separate- provision, that the children of his daughter are to share alike, indicate an intention upon the part of the testator to divide his estate *per stirpes*and not *per capita.*

Judgment ordered accordingly.
###### Editorial Note on Part 147

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 147 appear by USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49235, Sept. 25, 2009, and USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59782, Oct. 1, 2012.

#### § 147.105 Anesthetics, drugs, and medicines.

Anesthetics, drugs, and medicines must be stowed and dispensed in accordance with the DHHS Publication No. (PHS) 84-2024.
Opinion filed July 21, 2016



### In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

_____ _ _____


### No. 11

- 1 6

- 00 193

- CR

____ _ ______



### EX PARTE KEPHREN THOMAS

Original Proceeding

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Kephren Thomas has filed in this court a n application for writ of habeas

corpus in which he asserts that he has been indicted for a felony offense and that he

is being illegally restrained by the Sheriff of Midland County . Thomas raises several
contentions in his application and re quests that we issue a writ of habeas corpus

. We

dismiss for want of jurisdiction

. This court’s authority to exercise original jurisdiction is limited. S ee T EX

. C ONST

. art. V, §§ 5, 6 ( providing that Court of Criminal Appeals has the power to
issue writs of habeas corpus and that intermediate court s of appeals only ha ve original jurisdiction as prescribed by law) ; T EX

. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN

. § 22.221 (West

2004 ) ( limited writ powers granted to the courts of appeals). A n intermediate2

appellate court “does not possess original habeas corpus jurisdiction of a bail issue”

in a criminal case. Ortiz v. State , 299 S.W.3d 930, 932 (Tex. App.

— Amarillo 2009,
no pet.); see Ex parte Enriquez , 2 S.W.3d 362 , 363 (Tex. App.

— Waco 1999, orig.
proceeding)

. We note that t he Texas Code of Criminal Procedure provides that a

person who is confined after indictment on a felony charge may apply for a writ of
habeas corpus in the district court in which he is indicted

. T EX

. C ODE C RIM

. P ROC

. A NN . art. 11.08 (West 2015 ). Because we have no jurisdiction to issue a writ of
habeas corpus in this original proceeding, we must dismiss

.
T h is proceeding is dismi ssed for want of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

July 21 , 2016
Do not publish. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., Willson , J. , and Bailey, J.
Argued and submitted November 17, 1995,

reversed and remanded for award of attorney fees March 6, 1996

#### Peter P. McKENZIE, *Respondent, v.*Robert and Patricia ZAKLAN, *Appellants.*

(CSC 94-0675; CA A86761)

912 P2d 429

Denise Harrington argued the cause and filed the brief for appellants.

No appearance for respondent.

Before Warren, Presiding Judge, and Edmonds and Armstrong, Judges.

PER CURIAM

*510PER CURIAM

Tenants appeal from an order denying their motion for attorney fees after the court entered judgment dismissing landlord’s residential Forcible Entry and Detainer (FED) complaint. We reverse and remand.

 The court dismissed landlord’s complaint for failure to meet notice requirements under ORS 90.910(1). Tenants filed a motion for attorney fees under ORS 90.255. While the court was considering that motion, landlord filed a second complaint that commenced a new FED action against tenants. The court issued an order denying tenants’ motion for attorney fees as the prevailing party in the first action. Tenants appeal that denial. Under ORS 90.255, the prevailing party is entitled to recover attorney fees in the absence of compelling circumstances that make such an award improper. *Executive Mgt. Corp. v. Juckett,*274 Or 515, 519, 547 P2d 603 (1976). Although a subsequent FED action was pending between the parties, tenants are entitled to attorney fees as the prevailing party on the first action because the court entered judgment terminating that case in their favor. *Cedar Lodge Ltd. v. Elliot,*115 Or App 688, 839 P2d 757 (1992).

Reversed and remanded for award of reasonable attorney fees.
PUBLIC LAW 111–231—AUG. 16, 2010 124 STAT. 2489 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 511: 

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 111–253 (Comm. on Agriculture). 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD: 

Vol. 155 (2009): Sept. 15, considered and passed House. 

Vol. 156 (2010): Aug. 5, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 111–231 

111th Congress 

An Act 

To authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to terminate certain easements held 

by the Secretary on land owned by the Village of Caseyville, Illinois, and to 

terminate associated contractual arrangements with the Village. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. TERMINATION OF NRCS EASEMENTS AND ASSOCIATED 

CONTRACTUAL ARRANGEMENTS, VILLAGE OF 

CASEYVILLE, ILLINOIS. 

(a) TERMINATION AUTHORIZED.—The Secretary of Agriculture 

may terminate any easement held by the Secretary on land owned 

by the Village of Caseyville, Illinois, and terminate associated 

contractual arrangements with the Village. 

(b) CONSIDERATION.—As consideration for the termination of 

an easement and associated contractual arrangements under subsection (a), the Village of Caseyville, Illinois, shall enter into such 

compensatory arrangements with the Secretary as determined to 

be appropriate by the Secretary. 

Approved August 16, 2010. 

Aug. 16, 2010 

[H.R. 511] 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with PUBLAW
§ 170.248 Applicability. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section, this subpart applies to vessels with watertight doors in bulkheads that have been made watertight to comply with the flooding or damage stability regulations in this subchapter.
( b ) A watertight door on a MODU must comply with § 174.100 of this subchapter.
( c ) A watertight door on a self-propelled hopper dredge with a working freeboard must comply with § 174.335 of this subchapter.
( d ) Unless permitted otherwise, each vessel constructed on or after January 1, 2009 and issued a SOLAS Passenger Ship Safety Certificate or a SOLAS Cargo Ship Safety Construction Certificate must comply with the applicable regulations of IMO Res. MSC.216(82) in addition to the requirements of this subpart (IMO Res. MSC.216(82) incorporated by reference, see § 170.015).
[CGD 79-023, 48 FR 51010, Nov. 4, 1983, as amended by CGD 76-080, 54 FR 36977, Sept. 6, 1989; USCG-2007-0030, 75 FR 78084, Dec. 14, 2010]
#### § 169.725 First aid kit.

Each vessel must carry an approved first aid kit, constructed and fitted in accordance with subpart 160.041 of this chapter.
<PAGE>

                                                                 Exhibit 10.19.3

                                AMENDMENT NO. 3

THIS AMENDMENT ("Amendment") is made and entered into this 21 day of December,
1999, by and between Williams Network, a division of Williams Communications,
Inc. ("Williams") and Universal Access, Inc. ("Customer").

WHEREAS, Williams and Customer are parties to that certain Carrier Services
Agreement effective June 29th, 1998, (the "Agreement"); and

WHEREAS, Williams and Customer desire to amend the Agreement;

NOW, THEREORE in consideration of the foregoing premises and mutual promises and
covenants of the parties hereto, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby
acknowledged, Williams and Customer agree to amend the Agreement as follows:

1. In Section 2.1 of the Private Line Service Services & Pricing Schedule B
attached to the Agreement, the minimum monthly Charges for Private Line Service
as of November 15th, 1999 shall be as follows;

-------------------------------
            ***
-------------------------------
       ***          ***
-------------------------------
       ***          ***
-------------------------------
       ***          ***
-------------------------------
       ***          ***
-------------------------------
       ***          ***
-------------------------------

The above minimum monthly charges shall apply to all of Customer's existing
Private Line Services on a going forward basis beginning on November 15, 1999
and continuing thereafter through the remainder of the Term of the Agreement and
to any new Private Line Services ordered by Customer after November 15, 1999.

2. Except as specifically amended herein, all terms, conditions and provisions
contained in the Agreement shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect.

3. This Amendment shall become effective on the date on which Seller signs this
Amendment.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment on the day and year
first above set forth.


WILLIAMS COMMUNICATIONS, INC.             UNIVERSAL ACCESS, INC.


/s/ Gordon C. Martin                      /s/ Robert J. Pommer
--------------------------------          --------------------------------
(SIGNATURE)                               (SIGNATURE)

Gordon C. Martin                          Robert J. Pommer
--------------------------------          --------------------------------
(PRINT)                                   (PRINT)

1/18/00
SR VP Global Network Services     COO
--------------------------------          --------------------------------
(TITLE)                                   (TITLE)


*** Certain information on this page has been omitted and filed sparately with
the Commission. Confidential treatment has been requested with respect to the
omitted portions.


                                   Page 1 of 1
§ 189.35-15 Major installations. ( a ) Where the installation of weight handling gear requires modifications to the vessel's structure or affects the stability in a manner which cannot be assessed by the information contained in the approved trim and stability information, appropriate plans and information shall be submitted for approval. The installation shall then be inspected by the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection for conformance with the approved installation plans and information.
Editorial Note on Part 164
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 164 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59787, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 164.003-4 Inspections and tests. ( a ) Kapok fibers to be used in a finished product subject to inspection by the Coast Guard shall be subject to inspection and tests at the plant of the manufacturer of such product, who shall furnish the necessary testing tank, test cages, and scales.
( b ) Acceptance of kapok prior to being incorporated into finished products, or during the course of manufacture, shall in no case be construed as a guarantee of the acceptance of the finished product.
( c ) Not less than a one-pound sample from each 1,000 pounds of kapok shall be tested for buoyancy by the inspector. At his discretion, the inspector may select additional samples for tests if deemed advisable.
( d ) The buoyancy test shall be made with 16 ounces of processed kapok uniformly packed in a rigid wire box or cage with metal reinforced edges, and submerged by weights in a tank of fresh water to a depth of 12 inches below the surface of the water, measurement made to the top of box, for 48 hours. The test box shall be cylindrical in shape, and as nearly as practicable 1 ⁄ 3 cubic foot in volume, 4 inches deep, 13.54 inches diameter, all inside measurements; constructed of about 0.065 inch galvanized iron wire with about 1 ⁄ 4 inch mesh, and lined with about 0.007 inch copper wire screen about 18 meshes to the inch, to prevent the kapok from pushing out through the larger wire meshes. At the end of forty-eight hours submergence, the buoyancy shall be determined by subtracting the submerged weight of the box, accessory weights and kapok from the submerged weight of the box and weights without the kapok, and dividing the remainder by the volume of the kapok expressed in cubic feet.
( e ) Kapok fiber shall, at the option of the inspector, be subjected to a microscopic examination to detect adulteration with other fiber.
( f ) Processed kapok shall, at the option of the inspector, be subjected to separation of kapok fibers from foreign matter by hand, the portions of each weighed, and percentage of foreign matter computed for compliance with § 164.003-3(d).
**EXHIBIT 32****Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer****Certification of Periodic Financial Report**Daniel D. Leonard and Mike L. Wilhelms hereby certify as follows:     1. They are the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, respectively, of TriadFinancial Corporation.     2. The Form 10-Q of Triad Financial Corporation for the Quarter Ended September 30, 2007 (the“Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and the information contained in the report on Form 10-Qfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations ofTriad Financial Corporation.        Dated: November 9, 2007 /s/ Daniel D. Leonard   Daniel D. Leonard   President & Chief Executive Officer      Dated: November 9, 2007 /s/ Mike L. Wilhelms   Mike L. Wilhelms   Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         140,079
<SECURITIES>                                        32
<RECEIVABLES>                                   11,527
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (183)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               152,648
<PP&E>                                          18,291
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 302,177
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           21,649
<BONDS>                                        176,328
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          5
<COMMON>                                            21
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   302,177
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,291
<CGS>                                            6,179
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   11,048
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,230
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (18,019)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     8,366
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (9,653)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (9,653)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.47)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.47)


</TABLE>
#### § 184.506 Emergency broadcast placard.

A durable placard must be posted next to all radiotelephone installations with the emergency broadcast instructions and information, specific to the individual vessel.

[CGD 85-080, 61 FR 1002, Jan. 10, 1996, as amended at 62 FR 51358, Sept. 30, 1997]
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

No. 05-5160 September Term, 2005

FILED ON:DECEMBER 22, 2005[938657]

EMILY’S LIST,

APPELLANT

v.

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION,

APPELLEE

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia

(No. 05cv00049)

Before: GINSBURG, Chief Judge, SENTELLE, Circuit Judge, and WILLIAMS, Senior Circuit

Judge.

J U D G M E N T

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District

of Columbia and on the briefs and arguments of the parties. It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the order of the district court denying preliminary

injunctive relief be affirmed. 

When considering a request for injunctive relief the court must weigh whether: (1) the movant

has a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) the movant would suffer irreparable injury

absent an injunction; (3) an injunction would substantially injure other interested parties; and (4) an

injunction would further the public interest. See CityFed Fin. Corp. v. Office of Thrift Supervision,

58 F.3d 738, 746 (D.C. Cir. 1995). Considering the evidence of irreparable harm submitted by

EMILY’s List and its likelihood of prevailing on the merits in light of McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93

(2003), we cannot say the district court abused its discretion in denying injunctive relief. 
Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed

to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for

rehearing or rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.

Per Curiam

FOR THE COURT:

Mark J. Langer, Clerk

BY:

Michael C. McGrail

Deputy Clerk