alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2014431DE.01005101.xml

| 1.12.2014 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | C 431/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.12.2014

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

C 431/51

---

Berichtigung der Bekanntmachung des Gerichts in der Rechtssache T-444/11

(„Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union“
  C 380 vom 27.10.2014, S. 7
  )

C 380 vom 27.10.2014, S. 7

(2014/C 431/80)

Dieser Text annulliert und ersetzt den im Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union C 380 vom 27. Oktober 2014, Seite 7, veröffentlichten Text:

„Urteil des Gerichts vom 11. September 2014 — Gold East Paper und Gold Huasheng Paper/Rat

(Rechtssache T-444/11) (1)

((Subventionen - Einfuhren von gestrichenem Feinpapier mit Ursprung in China - Methodik - Berechnung des Vorteils - Offensichtlicher Beurteilungsfehler - Spezifität - Abschreibungszeitraum - Bevorzugte steuerliche Behandlung– Ausgleichsmaßnahmen - Schaden - Bestimmung der Gewinnspanne - Definition der betroffenen Ware - Wirtschaftszweig der Gemeinschaft - Kausalitätszusammenhang))

(2014/C 380/08)

Verfahrenssprache: Englisch

Verfahrensbeteiligte

Klägerinnen: Gold East Paper (Jiangsu) Co. Ltd (Jiangsu, China) und Gold Huasheng Paper (Suzhou Industrial Park) Co. Ltd (Jiangsu) (Prozessbevollmächtigte: Rechtsanwälte V. Akritidis, Y. Melin und F. Crespo)

Beklagter: Rat der Europäischen Union (Prozessbevollmächtigte: J.-P. Hix, zunächst im Beistand der Rechtsanwälte G. Berrisch und A. Polcyn sowie von N. Chesaites, Barrister, dann im Beistand von B. O’Connor, Solicitor, und Rechtsanwalt S. Gubel)

Streithelferinnen zur Unterstützung des Beklagten: Europäische Kommission (Prozessbevollmächtigte: J.-F. Brakeland, M. França und A. Stobiecka-Kuik), Cepifine AISBL (Brüssel, Belgien), Sappi Europe SA (Brüssel), Burgo Group SpA (Altavilla Vicentina, Italien) und Lecta SA (Luxemburg, Luxemburg) (Prozessbevollmächtigte: Rechtsanwälte L. Ruessmann und W. Berg)

Gegenstand

Klage auf Nichtigerklärung der Durchführungsverordnung (EU) Nr. 452/2011 des Rates vom 6. Mai 2011 zur Einführung eines endgültigen Ausgleichszolls auf die Einfuhren von gestrichenem Feinpapier mit Ursprung in der Volksrepublik China (ABl. L 128, S. 18), soweit sie die Klägerinnen betrifft

Tenor

| 1. | Die Klage wird abgewiesen. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Die Klage wird abgewiesen.

| 2. | Die Gold East Paper (Jiangsu) Co. Ltd und die Gold Huasheng Paper (Suzhou Industrial Park) Co. Ltd tragen ihre eigenen und die dem Rat der Europäischen Union, der Cepifine AISBL, der Sappi Europe SA, der Burgo Group SpA und der Lecta SA entstandenen Kosten. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Die Gold East Paper (Jiangsu) Co. Ltd und die Gold Huasheng Paper (Suzhou Industrial Park) Co. Ltd tragen ihre eigenen und die dem Rat der Europäischen Union, der Cepifine AISBL, der Sappi Europe SA, der Burgo Group SpA und der Lecta SA entstandenen Kosten.

| 3. | Die Europäische Kommission trägt ihre eigenen Kosten. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Die Europäische Kommission trägt ihre eigenen Kosten.

---

(1)  ABl. C 298 vom 8.10.2011.“

1

---
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 27, 2016

No. 04-16-00188-CR

Pablo ALFARO-JIMENEZ,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014CR9248

The Honorable Jefferson Moore, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Debra Doolittle’s notification of late record is hereby granted. The reporter’s record is 

due July 20, 2016. Further requests for extension will be disfavored. 

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 27th day of June, 2016.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
# C_2015056EN.01001602.xml

| 16.2.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 56/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.2.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 56/16

---

Order of the General Court of 15 December 2014 — AQ v Parliament

(Case T-168/11) (1)

1

((Action for compensation - Compensation for damage suffered by the applicant following the decision of the Parliament to take no further action on his petition - Request to initiate an inquiry into the alleged irregularities in the proceedings before the European Court of Human Rights - Manifest inadmissibility))

(2015/C 056/22)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: AQ (Żary, Poland) (represented by: P. K. Rosiak, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: K. Zejdová, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action for compensation for the damage suffered by the applicant following the decision of the Parliament to take no further action on his petition requesting the opening of an inquiry into the alleged irregularities in the proceedings before the European Court of Human Rights.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Mr AQ is ordered to bear his own costs and to pay those of the European Parliament. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr AQ is ordered to bear his own costs and to pay those of the European Parliament.

| 3. | The amount of the legal aid to be paid by the cashier of the General Court is fixed at EUR 1  653,36. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The amount of the legal aid to be paid by the cashier of the General Court is fixed at EUR 1  653,36.

---

(1)  OJ C 250, 18.8.2012.

1

---
# C_2013079EN.01001302.xml

| 16.3.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 79/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.3.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 79/13

---

Judgment of the General Court of 31 January 2013 — Present-Service Ullrich v OHIM — Punt-Nou (babilu)

(Case T-66/11) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark babilu - Earlier Community word mark BABIDU - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the services - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2013/C 79/22

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Present-Service Ullrich GmbH & Co. KG (Erlangen, Germany) (represented by: A. Graf von Kalckreuth and I. Stein, lawyers)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Punt-Nou, SL (Valencia, Spain) (represented by: I. Sempere Massa, lawyer)

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

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 November 2010 (Case R 773/2010-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Punt-Nou, SL and Present Service Ullrich GmbH & Co. KG.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Present-Service Ullrich GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Present-Service Ullrich GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 89, 19.3.2011.

1

---
EXHIBIT 99.19

CONSENT OF EXPERT

Reference is made to the Annual Report on Form 40-F (the Form
40-F) of Cameco Corporation (the Corporation) to be filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to the United States Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

I hereby consent to reference to my name and my involvement in the preparation of, or supervision of the preparation of, scientific and
technical information in the following instances:



| | (a) | under the headings Operations and Projects  Uranium Operating Properties  McArthur River/Key Lake, Mineral Reserves and Resources  and Governance  Interest of
Experts in the Corporations Annual Information Form for the year ended December 31, 2016 dated March 23, 2017 for the McArthur River/Key Lake properties; and
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (b) | under the headings Our Operations and Projects  Uranium Operating Properties  McArthur River mine/Key Lake mill and Mineral Reserves and Resources in Managements Discussion and
Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operation for the year ended December 31, 2016 dated February 9, 2017 for the McArthur River/Key Lake properties,
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(collectively the Technical Information) in the Form 40-F, and to the inclusion and incorporation by
reference of information derived from the Technical Information in the Form 40-F.

I also hereby
consent to the incorporation by reference of such Technical Information in the registration statements (Nos. 333-11736, 333-6180 and
333-139165) on Form S-8 for the Cameco Corporation Stock Option Plan, registration statement (No. 333-196422) on Form S-8 for the Cameco Corporation Employee Share Ownership Plan and registration statement (No. 333-200678) on Form F-10.

Sincerely,



|                |  |                                                             
|--------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Baoyao Tang
|Name:           |  | Baoyao Tang, P. Eng.                                        
|Title:          |  | Technical Superintendent, McArthur River, Cameco Corporation

Date: March 23, 2017
# C_2011319EN.01002804.xml

| 29.10.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 319/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.10.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 319/28

---

Order of the General Court of 6 September 2011 — Seka Yapo and Others v Council

(Case T-192/11) (1)

1

2011/C 319/61

Language of the case: French

The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 152, 21.5.2011.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5


<S>                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                               JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                 SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                         1,571,541
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  7,501,351
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (10,000)
<INVENTORY>                                    1,194,881
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              23,911,486
<PP&E>                                        24,036,306
<DEPRECIATION>                                (2,135,742)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                53,137,651
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         15,200,245
<BONDS>                                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                          147
<COMMON>                                           6,476
<OTHER-SE>                                     4,708,347
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  53,137,651
<SALES>                                       32,211,906
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              32,211,906
<CGS>                                          9,212,407
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 37,259,813
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 153,125
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             2,306,625
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (16,720,064)
<INCOME-TAX>                                           0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (16,720,064)
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (16,720,064)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (2.90)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      (2.90)



</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 99.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

           Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the
undersigned Chief Executive Officer of Thinkpath Inc. (the "Company") hereby
certifies that to the best of my knowledge:

           (a)       The Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly
                     period ended June 30, 2002 (the "Report"), to which this
                     certification is attached as an exhibit, fully complies
                     with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
                     Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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


/s/  Declan French
-----------------------
Declan French
Chief Executive Officer

August 19, 2002



<PAGE>
#### ANNA RUBEL, PLAINTIFF, v. OSCAR WEISS ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

Decided May 4, 1929.

Before Gummfjie, Chief Justice, and Justice Paeecee.

For the rule, *William B. Stiles.*

*Contra, Feder & Binzler.*

Pee Curiam.

The plaintiff, about ten o’clock in the morning, was riding in an automobile, owned by her and driven by her partner, along Main avenue, in the city of Passaic, traveling in a northerly direction. At the same time an automobile belonging to the defendant Weiss was being driven in a westerly direction on Brook avenue, an intersecting street. The automobile of the latter was being operated by the defendant Dora Bluestein. The two automobiles collided at the intersection of the streets named, injuring the plaintiff and damaging her car. She claims that the collision was the result of the carelessness of the defendant Dora Bluestein in driving *448the defendant Weiss’ ear, and brought suit against her, and also against the defendant Weiss, whose agent she was, to recover compensation from them for the injuries received by her and the damage done to her car. The trial resulted in a verdict of $2,500. in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant Weiss only.

The first ground upon which we are asked to make this rule absolute is that the verdict so rendered was in direct opposition to the charge of the court. And this is true. The court charged the jury that if they should find Weiss liable because of his ownership of the car and the agency of Mrs. Bluestein, “the verdict in that case will be against both Mrs. Bluestein and Mr. Weiss, because, even though Mrs. Blue-stein might be the agent of Mr. Weiss, if she was negligent, she is personally responsible for her own wrongful act, as well as her principal, for whom she is the agent.” Ordinarily the failure of a jury to find a verdict either for or against one or more of the defendants in an action is no ground for' setting aside such verdict as to the defendant against whom it is rendered. But this principle does not apply where the court expressly charges the jury that their verdict must be against both or neither of the defendants, and the jury deliberately disregards that instruction.

For this reason, the rule to show cause will be made absolute.
CERTIFICATIONS

          I, Timothy G. Byrd, Sr., certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Consolidated Medical
Management, Inc.;

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
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):

a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's
auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
quarterly report whether there were significant changes in internal controls or
in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to
the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.


          Date: November 11, 2005


                                    /s/ Timothy G. Byrd, Sr.
§ 385.51 Criteria: Projects. The criteria to be used by MarAd in evaluating all projects prior to award of a grant or cooperative agreement are as follows: ( a ) In terms of the accomplishment of a public purpose— ( 1 ) The potential contribution which the proposed work is expected to make to the MarAd assistance mission;
( 2 ) The economic, environmental, and societal significance which a successful demonstration or project may have for the nation, and in particular the national merchant marine program;
( 3 ) The relationship of the proposal to: ( i ) The public need for the potential results of the research, development, or demonstration effort, and whether it is unlikely that similar results would be achieved in a timely manner in the absence of Federal assistance;
( ii ) Whether the potential opportunities for non-Federal interests to recapture the investment in the undertaking through the normal commercial utilization of proprietary knowledge appear inadequate to encourage timely results;
( iii ) The extent of the problems treated and whether the objectives sought by the undertaking are national, widespread, or regional in their significance;
( iv ) The extent of opportunities to induce non-Federal support of the undertaking;
( v ) The degree of risk of loss of the investment inherent in the research, and the availability of risk capital to the non-Federal entities which might otherwise engage in the field of the research so as to further timely development of the technology; and,
( vi ) The availability of appropriations to MarAd.
( b ) In terms of the particular objectives of the project, whether the project has: ( 1 ) High technical merit which promises or represents an innovative idea, method, or approach;
( 2 ) Program value not previously recognized or pursued by MarAd; and,
( 3 ) A reasonable degree of probability of achieving the stated objectives.
Editorial Note on Part 2
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear by USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49223, Sept. 25, 2009, and USCG-2013-0671, 78 FR 60144, Sept. 30, 2013.

§ 2.10-135 Penalties. ( a ) A vessel owner or operator who fails to pay a fee or charge established under this subpart is liable to the United States Government for a civil penalty.
( b ) In addition to the fees established in this subpart, the Coast Guard may recover collection and enforcement costs associated with delinquent payments of, or failure to pay, a fee. Coast Guard inspection and examination services may also be withheld pending payment of outstanding fees owed to the Coast Guard for inspection and examination services provided.
( c ) Each District Commander or Officer in Charge Marine Inspection may request the Secretary of the Treasury, or the authorized representative thereof, to withhold or revoke the clearance required by 46 U.S.C. app. 91 of a vessel for which a fee or charge established under this part has not been paid or until a bond is posted for the payment.
[CGD 91-030, 60 FR 13563, Mar. 13, 1995, as amended by CGD 96-052, 62 FR 16703, Apr. 8, 1997]
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   Exhibit 10.15


           SECOND AMENDMENT TO PROMISSORY NOTE DATED FEBRUARY 1, 1991


         THIS AMENDMENT (the "Amendment"), dated as of February 7, 1997, by and
between Legacy Software, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Borrower"), and Irving
Lehrer to that certain Promissory Note, dated as of February 1, 1991, by
Borrower in favor of Lender, as amended by the Addendum dated March 1, 1995 and
the Amendment dated November 10, 1995, (the "Note").

                                 R E C I T A L

         A.      Lender has made certain loans under the note to Borrower.

         B.      Subject to the terms and conditions contained herein, the
parties desire to amend the Note to extend the commencement date of repayment
of the principal to July 1, 1997.

         C.      Borrower will repay principal at the rate of $10,000.00 per
month plus accrued interest beginning on July 1, 1997.

         D.      Except as otherwise provided herein, all capitalized terms
used in this Amendment shall have the meanings set forth in the Note (after
giving effect to this Amendment).

                 NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the
receipt and adequacy of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree
as follows:

         1.      Sections 1 and 2 of the Note are hereby amended so that all
references to "July 1, 1996" shall be deleted and replaced with July 1, 1997.

         2.      There are no other amendments, changes or modifications to the
Note and all other sections thereof shall remain unaffected by this Amendment.

                 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this
Amendment as of the date first written above.

                                        LEGACY SOFTWARE, INC.,
                                        a Delaware corporation



                                        By: /s/ Ariella Lehrer
                                            -----------------------------------
                                        Name:  Ariella Lehrer
                                        Title: President

AGREED TO AND ACCEPTED
BY "LENDER":


/s/ Irving Lehrer
----------------------------------------
Irving Lehrer