alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2018436EN.01003401.xml

| 3.12.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 436/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.12.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 436/34

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 October 2018 — Vereniging Gelijkberechtiging Grondbezitters and Others v Commission

(Case T-79/16) (1)

((State aid - Aid scheme relating to the subsidised acquisition or free granting of nature land - Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market at the end of the preliminary examination stage - No formal investigation procedure - Locus standi - Notion of interested party - Admissibility - Infringement of procedural rights - Serious difficulties - Substantial effect on the competitive position of the competing undertakings))

(2018/C 436/47)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicants: Vereniging Gelijkberechtiging Grondbezitters (Hoenderloo, Netherlands) and 21 other applicants whose names are listed in Annex I to the judgment (represented by: H. Viaene, D. Gillet and T. Ruys, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P.-J. Loewenthal and S. Noë, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Vereniging tot Behoud van Natuurmonumenten in Nederland (‘s-Graveland, Netherlands) and 12 other interveners whose names are listed in Annex II to the judgment (represented by: P. Kuypers and M. de Wit, lawyers)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2015) 5929 final of 2 September 2015 on State Aid SA.27301 (2015/NN) — Netherlands in connection with the subsidised acquisition or free granting of nature land, a summary of which was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJ 2006 C 9, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Commission Decision C(2015) 5929 final of 2 September 2015 on State Aid SA.27301 (2015/NN) — Netherlands in connection with the subsidised acquisition or free granting of nature land; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Commission Decision C(2015) 5929 final of 2 September 2015 on State Aid SA.27301 (2015/NN) — Netherlands in connection with the subsidised acquisition or free granting of nature land;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Vereniging Gelijkberechtiging Grondbezitters and the other applicants whose names are listed in Annex I; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Vereniging Gelijkberechtiging Grondbezitters and the other applicants whose names are listed in Annex I;

| 3. | Orders Vereniging tot Behoud van Natuurmonumenten in Nederland and the other interveners whose names are listed in Annex II to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Vereniging tot Behoud van Natuurmonumenten in Nederland and the other interveners whose names are listed in Annex II to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 118, 4.4.2016.

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

: CIVIL ACTION NOS.

:

WYLIE : 02-3872

JACOBS, et al. : 02-3931

MORRIS : 02-3968

VARGAS, et al. : 02-4172

WALSH, et al. : 02-4181

WASLH, et al. : 02-4183

BRUNO : 02-4232

BURNETT, et al. : 02-4236

ANCTIL : 02-4285

FISHER, et al. : 02-4293

ASHCRAFT : 02-4297

CHARBONEAU : 02-4308

:

VS. :

:

BAYER CORPORATION, et al. :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this day of July, 2002, the Court having been previously

advised that the above action cannot proceed to trial and disposition because of the following

reason:

[ ] - Order staying these proceedings pending disposition of a related

action.

[ ] - Order staying these proceedings pending determination of

arbitration proceedings.

[ ] - Interlocutory appeal filed.

[ X ] - Other: Case is placed into suspense pending receipt of the Case

Transfer Order from the Judicial Panel on Multi District Litigation

transferring case to District of Minnesota..

It is

ORDERED that the Clerk of Court mark this action closed for statistical purposes and

place the matter in the Civil Suspense File, and it is

Case 2:02-cv-04297-LDD Document 2 Filed 07/15/2002 Page 1 of 2
FURTHER ORDERED that the Court shall retain jurisdiction; and that the case be

restored to the trial docket when the action is in a status so that it may proceed to final

disposition; this order shall not prejudice the rights of the parties to this litigation.

BY THE COURT:

________________________________________

Legrome D. Davis, Judge

Case 2:02-cv-04297-LDD Document 2 Filed 07/15/2002 Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MICHELE RICCI : CIVIL ACTION

:

 v. : NO. 02-4330

:

AETNA, INC. d/b/a AETNA U.S. :

HEALTHCARE AND AETNA LIFE :

INSURANCE COMPANY :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 1st day of October, 2003, upon consideration of the Motion for

Enlargement of Time to File an Answer to Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Document No.

34) and the plaintiff’s response, it is ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED and the

defendants’ Answer with Affirmative Defenses is deemed filed as of this date.

 

TIMOTHY J. SAVAGE, J.

Case 2:02-cv-04330-TJS Document 40 Filed 10/01/2003 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : CRIMINAL ACTION

:

v. : NO. 04-697-1

:

MALCOLM LADSON

46948-066

:

ORDER

AND NOW, this 22nd day of June 2020, upon considering Defendant’s renewed Motion 

for reduction of sentence (ECF Doc. No. 251), the United States’ Response (ECF Doc. No. 252),

Defendant’s supplemental Memorandum (ECF Doc. No. 262), following an evidentiary hearing 

where we evaluated the credibility of testimony and admitted exhibits, and for reasons in the 

accompanying Memorandum, it is ORDERED:

1. Defendant’s Motion (ECF Doc. No. 251) is GRANTED;

2. We amend the August 2, 2005 Judgment and Commitment Order (ECF Doc. No. 

114) to sentence Malcolm Ladson USM# 46948-066 to time served through June 24, 2020;

3. Mr. Ladson shall be released from custody on June 24, 2020;

4. Defendant’s three-year term of supervised release shall begin immediately upon 

release from custody with all standard conditions of supervision and the following special 

conditions:

a. Mr. Ladson will remain confined to his home for two weeks with no contact 

with anyone other than his family upon release from custody;

b. Mr. Ladson shall maintain his residence in this District and shall not leave 

this District without consent from his Probation Officer;

Case 2:04-cr-00697-MAK Document 264 Filed 06/22/20 Page 1 of 2
2

c. Mr. Ladson shall immediately begin steps to secure a Pennsylvania driver’s 

license and begin work consistent with his June 16, 2020 sworn testimony upon completing the

two weeks home quarantine;

d. Mr. Ladson shall immediately begin steps to arrange for community 

involvement, including efforts in speaking to or working with younger persons at Carson Valley 

School or otherwise in this District at least three times over the course of his term of supervision 

as approved by the Probation Officer; 

e. Mr. Ladson shall not possess a firearm, destructive device, or any other 

dangerous weapon on his person or in a residence;

f. Mr. Ladson shall cooperate in the collection of DNA as directed by the 

Probation Officer;

g. Mr. Ladson shall submit to urinalysis within twenty days after being placed 

on supervision and at least two periodic tests thereafter at the direction of the Probation Officer;

h. Mr. Ladson shall participate in a drug treatment program consistent with the 

regiment of the Bureau of Prisons’ RDAP program until satisfactorily excused by the Probation 

Officer and which may include urinalysis testing at the direction of the Probation Officer; and,

i. Mr. Ladson shall seek and maintain gainful employment, including 

providing verification of employment as directed by the Probation Officer.

5. All other conditions of supervision in the August 2, 2005 Judgment and 

Commitment Order (ECF Doc. No. 114) remain in effect.

______________________

KEARNEY, J.

Case 2:04-cr-00697-MAK Document 264 Filed 06/22/20 Page 2 of 2
No. 49951.

#### Protest 63612-K of J. Sammes (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

It was stipulated that the Roquefort cheese is similar in all material respects to that passed upon in Abstracts 36724 and 38185, which records were incorporated, herein. In accordance with stipulation and following the decisions cited the court hold that an allowance for the weight of the paper or foil, or both, should have been made by the collector from the net weight used in computing the duty thereon. The protest was sustained to this extent.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Be th Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

February 6, 2015

s0203 

# Order

Clerk February 6, 2015

150844

SC: 150844

In re SANT OS, Minors. COA: 320220

Eaton CC Family Division:

13

- 018437

- NA

_______________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 18, 2014

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

BERNARD DOLAN and

MARILYN DOLAN

:

:

: CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-CV-4306

Plaintiffs, :

:

v. :

:

BAYER CORPORATION;

BAYER AG;

GLAXOSMITHKLINE, PLC;

GLAXOSMITHKLINE;

SMITHKLINE BEECHAM

:

:

:

:

:

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

:

Defendants. :

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

To the Clerk of the Court:

Kindly enter the appearances of Hope S. Freiwald, Aline Fairweather, Erin

Brennan and Kirstin J. Miller as attorneys for defendant GlaxoSmithKline PLC.

Respectfully Submitted,

_____________________________ _____________________________

Hope S. Freiwald Aline Fairweather

_____________________________ _____________________________

Erin Brennan Kirstin J. Miller

DECHERT PRICE & RHOADS

4000 Bell Atlantic Tower

1717 Arch Street

Philadelphia, PA 19103-2793

(215) 994-4000

Case 2:02-cv-04306-JD Document 7 Filed 09/11/2002 Page 1 of 1
No. 59981.

#### F. C. Mackay et al. *v.*United States,

protests 171698-K, etc. (Pembina).

*457Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with, stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of beef or veal similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Swift & Company et al.*v. *United States*(33 Cust. Ct. 212, C. D. 1655), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6584

FREDDY S. CAMPBELL,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

DONALD M. ERVIN, Administrator, Charleston

Work Release,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Bluefield. David A. Faber, District

Judge. (CA-94-411)

Submitted: December 10, 1996 Decided: December 31, 1996

Before HALL, MURNAGHAN, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Freddy S. Campbell, Appellant Pro Se. Darrell V. McGraw, Jr.,

Scott E. Johnson, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA,

Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Freddy S. Campbell seeks to appeal the district court's order

denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1994),

amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996,

Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214. We have reviewed the record

and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal; to

the extent that a certificate of appealability is required, we deny

such a certificate. We dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the

district court. Campbell v. Ervin, No. CA-94-411 (S.D.W. Va., Mar.

6, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 4.1

    

    

    The Company’s authorized capital stock consists of 500,000 shares of preferred stock, par value $0.01 per share (the “Preferred Stock”), and 20,000,000
      Common Stock.

    

    

    The following is a summary of the material provisions of the Company’s Certificate of Incorporation, as amended (the “Certificate of Incorporation”) and
      Amended and Restated By-laws (the “By-laws”), insofar as they relate to the material terms of the Common

    

    

    Stock. This description summarizes the material terms and provisions of the Common Stock, but it is not complete. This summary is qualified in its
      entirety by reference to the Certificate of Incorporation and By-laws, which are incorporated herein by reference.

    

    

    Each holder of the Common Stock is entitled to one vote for each share on all matters to be voted upon by the stockholders and there are no cumulative
      voting rights. In the event of a liquidation, dissolution or winding up of the Company, holders of the Common

    

    

    Stock would be entitled to share in the Company’s assets remaining after the payment of the Company’s debts and liabilities. Holders of the Common Stock
      have no preemptive or conversion rights or other subscription rights and there are no redemption or sinking fund provisions applicable to the Common Stock. The rights, preferences and privileges of the holders of the Common Stock are subject to, and
      may be adversely affected by, the rights of the holders of shares of any series of Preferred Stock that we may designate in the future.

    

    

    The Common Stock is not convertible into, or exchangeable for, any other class or series of the Company’s capital stock. Holders of the Common Stock do
      not have preemptive or other rights to subscribe for or purchase additional securities of the Company. Certain provisions of the Company’s articles of incorporation and bylaws may delay, discourage, prevent or render more difficult an attempt to
      obtain control of the Company, whether through a tender offer, business combination, proxy contest or otherwise. These provisions include the charter authorization of “blank check” preferred stock (as described above) and a restriction on the ability
      of stockholders to call a special meeting.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

BRICKLAYERS AND ALLIED )

CRAFTWORKERS LOCAL 1 OF PA/DE; ) Civil Action

BRICKLAYERS AND ALLIED ) No. 02-CV-04079

CRAFTWORKERS LOCAL 1 OF PA/DE )

HEALTH AND WELFARE FUND; )

BRICKLAYERS AND ALLIED )

CRAFTWORKERS LOCAL 1 OF PA/DE )

JOINT APPRENTICESHIP AND )

TRAINING FUND; )

TILE LAYERS LOCAL 6 ANNUITY FUND;)

TMT TILE FINISHERS LOCAL 32 )

ANNUITY FUND; )

TILE LAYERS LOCAL 6 )

VACATION FUND; and )

TMT TILE FINISHERS LOCAL 32 )

VACATION FUND, )

 )

Plaintiffs )

 )

vs. )

 )

MASTRO MASONRY CONTRACTORS; )

ERNEST BOCK AND SONS, INC.; )

XL SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY; )

and JOSEPH RUSSO, Individually )

and as President of Mastro )

Masonry Contractors, )

 )

Defendants )

ERNEST BOCK AND SONS, INC., )

 )

Cross Claimant )

 )

vs. )

 )

MASTRO MASONRY CONTRACTORS, )

 )

Cross Defendant )

O R D E R

NOW, this 8th day of October, 2003, upon consideration

of the Motion to Revise Non Jury Attachment Order filed by

plaintiffs on October 8, 2003; it appearing that plaintiffs have

certified in accordance with Local Rule 7.1(b) of the Rules of

Case 2:02-cv-04079-JKG Document 19 Filed 10/09/2003 Page 1 of 2
Civil Procedure for the United States District Court for the

Eastern District of Pennsylvania,

IT IS ORDERED that the motion is granted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall have until

October 10, 2003 to file plaintiff’s trial memorandum.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall have until

October 13, 2003 to file the parties agreed upon findings of fact

and conclusions of law.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall have until

October 14, 2003 to file its summary of contentions of fact and

theories of liability and damages.

BY THE COURT:

 

James Knoll Gardner

United States District Judge

Case 2:02-cv-04079-JKG Document 19 Filed 10/09/2003 Page 2 of 2
No. 59470.

protest 243373-K (New York).

#### F. W. Woolworth Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of hot plate mats the same in all material respects as those the subject of Abstract 57261, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 53443.

protest 953203-G (Los Angeles).

#### W. N. Modglin & Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, *J.*

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise is similar in all material respects to the creme de cassis involved in *DeFremery & Co.*v. *United States*(31 C. C. P. A. 83, C. A. D. 253), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
# C_2017161EN.01001801.xml

| 22.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/18

---

Order of the President of the Court of 23 February 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — Ministério da Saúde, Administração Regional de Saúde de Lisboa e Vale do Tejo, I.P. v João Carlos Lombo Silva Cordeiro

(Case C-229/16) (1)

1

(2017/C 161/24)

Language of the case: Portuguese

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

---

(1)  OJ C 287, 8.8.2016.

1

---
Before the Second Division,

May 10, 1962

No. 66749.

#### J. C. De Jong & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 61/14770, etc. (New York).

*449Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of brass pole rings similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Kroder Reubel Co., Inc., et al.*v. *United States*(44 Cust. Ct. 274, C.D. 2186), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
# C_2016191EN.01001202.xml

| 30.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/12

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Regionale di Milano (Italy) lodged on 2 March 2016 — Stanleybet Malta Ltd and Mario Stoppani v Agenzia delle dogane e dei Monopoli

(Case C-141/16)

(2016/C 191/15)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Commissione Tributaria Regionale di Milano

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Stanleybet Malta Ltd, Mario Stoppani

Appellants:

Respondent: Agenzia delle dogane e dei Monopoli

Respondent:

Question referred

Question referred

Do Articles 56 and 52 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, having regard also to the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union itself, on gambling and betting services such as the judgments in Gambelli, Placanica and Costa and Cifone, on tax discrimination such as the judgments in Lindman, Commission v Spain, and Bianco and Fabretti, and to the EU law principles of equal treatment, non-discrimination and legitimate expectations, preclude national legislation such as the Italian legislation, under consideration in the present dispute, which makes national intermediaries transmitting gambling data on behalf of betting operators, established in a different EU Member State, in particular, those sharing the characteristics of the company Stanleybet Malta Ltd, and possibly, those betting operators, jointly with their national intermediaries, liable, even retrospectively, to the Single Tax on betting and pools provided for in Articles 1 to 3 of Legislative Decree No 504 of 23 December 1998, as amended by Article 1(66)(b) of the Stability Law 2011?

Gambelli

Placanica

Costa and Cifone

Lindman

Commission

Spain

Bianco and Fabretti

---
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1075 

To direct the Secretary of Energy and the Secretary of Commerce to conduct 

a study of the feasibility of establishing an ethane storage and distribution hub in the United States. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 9, 2017 

Mrs. CAPITO (for herself, Mr. MANCHIN, and Mr. PORTMAN) introduced the 

following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To direct the Secretary of Energy and the Secretary of 

Commerce to conduct a study of the feasibility of establishing an ethane storage and distribution hub in the 

United States. 

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 ‘‘Appalachian Ethane 

5 Storage Hub Study Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. ETHANE STORAGE STUDY. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Energy (referred 

8 to in this section as the ‘‘Secretary’’) and the Secretary 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1075 IS

1 of Commerce, in consultation with other relevant Federal 

2 departments and agencies and stakeholders, shall conduct 

3 a study of the feasibility of establishing an ethane storage 

4 and distribution hub in the Marcellus, Utica, and 

5 Rogersville shale plays in the United States. 

6 (b) CONTENTS.—The study conducted under sub7 section (a) shall include— 

8 (1) an examination of, with respect to the pro9 posed ethane storage and distribution hub— 

10 (A) potential locations; 

11 (B) economic feasibility; 

12 (C) economic benefits; 

13 (D) geological storage capacity capabilities; 

14 (E) above-ground storage capabilities; 

15 (F) infrastructure needs; and 

16 (G) other markets and trading hubs, par17 ticularly hubs relating to ethane; and 

18 (2) the identification of potential additional 

19 benefits of the proposed hub to energy security. 

20 (c) PUBLICATION OF RESULTS.—Not later than 2 

21 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Sec22 retary and the Secretary of Commerce shall— 

23 (1) submit to the Committee on Energy and 

24 Commerce of the House of Representatives and the 

25 Committees on Energy and Natural Resources and 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 1075 IS

1 Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Sen2 ate a report describing the results of the study 

3 under subsection (a); and 

4 (2) publish those results on the Internet 

5 websites of the Departments of Energy and Com6 merce, respectively. 

Æ 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
# C_2017006EN.01002402.xml

| 9.1.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.1.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/24

---

Appeal brought on 2 June 2016 by Ukraine against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 11 March 2015 in Case T-348/14: Yanukovych v Council

(Case C-319/16 P)

(2017/C 006/31)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Ukraine (represented by: M. Kostytska, avocat)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Oleksandr Viktorovych Yanukovych, Council of the European Union, European Commission

Other parties to the proceedings:

By order of 5 October 2016 the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.

---