alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2019082EN.01004501.xml

| 4.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 82/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 82/45

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 –Wahlström v Frontex

(Case T-591/16) (1)

((Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Frontex - Non-renewal of a fixed-term contract - Article 8 of the CEOS - Duty of care - Use of an annulled appraisal report - Manifest error of assessment - Liability - Costs - Equity - Article 135(1) of the Rules of Procedure))

(2019/C 82/51)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Kari Wahlström (Espoo (Finland)) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) (represented by: H. Caniard and S. Drew, acting as Agents, and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Action under Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the decision of 26 June 2015 not to renew the applicant’s contract as a member of the temporary staff of Frontex and, secondly, compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant due to the loss of salary consequent thereon and the loss of corresponding pension rights.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 251, 11.7.2016 (case initially registered at the European Union Civil Service Tribunal as Case F-21/16 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).

---
(Reap. Dec. 10346)

Entry No. CE-1558.

#### United China & Glass Co. *v.*United States

*408(Decided October 3, 1962)

*Stem & Bhostah*for the plaintiff.

*Joseph D. Guilfoyle,*Acting Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

JOHNSON, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement bas been submitted upon the following stipulation of counsel for the respective parties :

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the respective parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court, as to the merchandise covered by the appeal for reappraisement enumerated in the attached Schedule of Cases, that, on the dates of exportation thereof to the United States, the market value or the price at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition packed ready for shipment to the United States, were the invoice unit values net, packed.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that as to any of the merchandise covered by the appeal for reappraisement enumerated in the attached Schedule of Gases which is included in the list of articles designated by the Secretary of the Treasury in T.D. 54521, as provided for in Section .6 (a) of the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, Public Law 927, 84th Congress, which is subject to appraisement under Sec. 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended by the Customs Administrative Act of 1938, that there were no higher foreign values for such or similar merchandise on the dates of exportation involved herein.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the appeal for re-appraisement enumerated in the attached Schedule of Cases may be deemed submitted for decision on the foregoing stipulation.

It appears that all of the merchandise covered by this appeal was imported subsequent to the effective date of the Customs Simplification Act of 1956,70 Stat. 943, and the final list issued pursuant thereto in 93 Treas. Dec. 14, T.D. 54521. Some of the articles may be included in the said final list and some may not. The former are subject to appraisement under section 402a (d) of said Customs Simplification Act of 1956 and the latter under section 402(b) of said act. It has been stipulated, however, that export value is the proper basis of appraisement of all the articles involved herein and that there is no higher foreign value for any of them.

On the record presented, I find that export value, as that value is defined in section 402(b) or section 402a (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, 70 Stat. 943, is the proper basis for the determination of the values of the articles involved herein and that such values are the invoice unit values, net, packed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
# C_2017112EN.01005003.xml

| 10.4.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.4.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/50

---

Order of the General Court of 14 February 2017 — HP v Commission and eu-LISA

(Case T-596/16) (1)

1

(2017/C 112/70)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 296, 16.8.2016 (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under number F-26/16 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1 September 2016).

1

---
# C_2016200EN.01001001.xml

| 6.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/10

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo regionale per il Molise (Italy) lodged on 18 March 2016 — Spinosa Costruzioni Generali SpA, Melfi Srl v Comune di Monteroduni

(Case C-162/16)

(2016/C 200/15)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo regionale per il Molise

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Spinosa Costruzioni Generali SpA, Melfi Srl

Applicants:

Defendant: Comune di Monteroduni

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Do the Community principles of the protection of legitimate expectations and legal certainty, together with the principles of the free movement of goods, the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services, laid down in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), as well as the principles deriving therefrom, such as equality of treatment, non-discrimination, mutual recognition, proportionality and transparency, referred to (most recently) in Directive 2014/24/EU, (1) preclude national legislation, such as the Italian legislation founded on the combined provisions of Articles 87(4) and 86(3a) of Legislative Decree No 163 of 2006 and Article 26(6) of Legislative Decree No 81 of 2008, as interpreted, with a view to securing proper respect for, and uniform application of, the law, pursuant to Article 99 of the Code of Administrative Procedure, by judgments No 3 and No 9 of 2015 of the Plenary Assembly of the Consiglio di Stato, according to which the failure to list the corporate safety and security costs separately in tenders in a procedure for the award of a public works contract inevitably results in the exclusion of the tendering undertaking concerned, even in the case where the obligation to list that information separately was not set out either in the tender rules or on the attached form to be completed for the submission of the tender, and even though, in substantive terms, the tender in question took into account the minimum costs of corporate safety and security?

1

---

(1)  Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 65).

1

---
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

TX MEDICAL OFFICE, LP,

FL MEDICAL OFFICE, LLC,

CA MEDICAL OFFICE, LP, AND

MOB PORTFOLIO ASSOCIATES, LLC,

Appellant s,

v.

TENET HEALTH SYSTEM

HOSPITALS, INC.

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 12

- 00 263

- CV

Appeal from

34 th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC # 2010

- 1628 )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pending before the Court is a joint motion to dis pose of this appeal in accordance with

the parties’ agreement. See T EX .R.A PP .P. 42.1(a)(2)( A). The parties filed a joint motion for

disposition pursuant to a settlement agreement, stating that all issues i n dispute have been fully

resolved and requesting that we vacate the trial court ’ s judgment, dismiss the case

, and render

judgment effectuating the parties ’ settlement agreement. See T EX .R.A PP .P. 42.1(a)(2)( A)

( permitting appeals court to dispose of appea l by rendering judgment effectuating the parties ’

agreement) ; T EX .R.A PP .P. 43.2(e)( permitting the appeals court to vacate the trial court ’ s

judgment and dismiss the case ). The settlement agreement specifically requests that this Court

dismiss the case as follows:2

(a) all claims, counter claims, or causes of action asserted in the Case as to the Site

known by the parties as ‘ Alvarado Medical Plaza II ’ are dismissed without

prejudice to refiling of same, and

(b ) all remaining claims, counter claims, or causes of action asserted in the Case

are dismissed with prejudice to refiling of same.

[Emp hasis in original ] . Both parties have signed the settlement agreement and filed i t with the

Clerk of this Court in accordance with T EX .R.A PP .P. 42.1(a)(2).

The motion is granted. T he tr ial court ’ s judgment signed on July 31, 2012 is vacated, and

the case is dismissed pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement in that all cla ims,

counterclaim s, or causes of action as to the “ Alvarado Medical Plaza II ” site are dismissed

without prejudice and all remaining claims, counterclaim s

, or causes of action are dismissed with

prejudice. See T EX .R.A PP .P. 42.1(a)(2)(A), 43.2(e). Because the settlement agreement recites

that each party shall bear its own costs and attorney ’ s fees in the case, costs of appeal are taxed

against the parties who have incurred them. See T EX .R.A PP .P. 42.1(d)(providing that in absence

of an agreement by the par ties, costs will be taxed against the appellant).

August 21, 2013 ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera, and Rodriguez, JJ.
##### 



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
  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Date: August 9, 2005
    
    By:
    
    /s/ John S. DavisJohn S. DavisPresident andChief Executive Officer
 30
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NO. AP -76,888

EX P ARTE ANG EL S TEVEN DOOL EY, Appl icant
ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. CR10-0671- 01 IN THE 43rd DIS TRICT COURT

F ROM P ARK

ER COUNTY
Per curiam . O P I N I O N Pursuant to the provisi o n s o f Ar t icle 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedur e, the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habea s corpus. Ex parte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of assault causing bodily injury and sente nced to six y ear s’ imprisonment. He did not appea l his conviction. Applicant contends that he is being improperly denied the pre- sentenc e jail t i m e cr ed it
awa rded on his judgme nt beca use of an err or reg arding the offe nse date listed on that same judgme nt. The Applicant is entitled to relief
. The rec ord ref

lects t h at , d u e t o an err or in judicial
rea soning, the trial court listed a n incorre ct offe nse date on the judgme nt. This e rror is preventing2

the Applicant f

rom rec eiving the jail time cre dit that was corr ectly awa rded in the judg ment. 1 Relief is grante d. The judgme nt in Cause No. CR10-0671-01 in the 43rd District Court of Parker County is ref

ormed to ref

lect an offe nse date of May 14, 2010, and the Appl i ca n t i s t o b e
awa rded c redit for

the per iod of time listed on the judgment. Copies of this opinion shall be sent to th e T e xa s D e p a r tm e nt o f Cr iminal J ustice–Corre ctional Institut ions Division and Pardons and Paroles Division.

Deliver ed: Octobe r 3, 2012 Do not publish

The trial c ourt incorr ectly listed the offe nse date as Jul y 27, 2010, and then a

war ded the 1 Applicant jail time cre dit from J une 15, 2010 to Novembe r 22, 2010.
1 

### Sutton, Lisa

From: Maietta, Anthony

Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 4:32 PM

To: Brachtl, Megan; Sutton, Lisa

Cc: Portanova, Mary; Blakley, Pamela

Subject: FW: Indiana: Final SIP Call: Startup, Shutdown, Malfunction

Attachments: McCabe letter to air directors final SSM SIP call 05-22-15.pdf

Anthony Maietta

EPA Region 5

maietta.anthony@epa.gov

(312) 353

‐ 8777

From: Czerniak, George

Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 3:30 PM

To: Portanova, Mary; Maietta, Anthony

Subject: FW: Indiana: Final SIP Call: Startup, Shutdown, Malfunction

From: Czerniak, George

Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 1:19 PM

To: 'kBaugues@idem.in.gov'

Subject: Indiana: Final SIP Call: Startup, Shutdown, Malfunction

Keith:

This message is a follow

‐ up to my recent phone call notifying you about the final action the EPA Administrator signed

today to ensure States have in place air pollution rules that apply to sources at all times, including when the source is

operating during periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction (SSM).

This action responds to a Petition for Rulemaking filed by the Sierra Club and WildEarth Guardians concerning the

treatment of excess emissions at industrial facilities during SSM operations, specifically how those emissions are

treated in State Implementation Plan (SIP) provisions that the EPA previously approved. Also, as part of this action,

EPA has revised and clarified its policy concerning SSM provisions consistent with the Clean Air Act.

The EPA is calling for 36 States, including Indiana, to make changes to their SIPs, to protect public health and ensure

consistency with the Clean Air Act and the EPA’s current SSM Policy. You will have 18 months to submit revisions of

your State plan to EPA. Your revised SIP is due to EPA by November 22, 2016.

As part of our notification to your State about this final SIP call, I have attached to this email a letter from the EPA’s

Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, Janet McCabe. To inform you of the details on the final action,

including the specific SIP provisions your State needs to address, we have posted a pre

‐ publication version of the

action on our website at: http://www.epa.gov/airquality/ur banair/sipstatus/emissions.html

.

The EPA will continue to work closely with you to ensure the SIP revision process is as efficient as possible. If you or

your staff have questions, please contact Mary Portanova, portanova.mary@epa.gov

, (312) 353

‐ 5954.2 George

Attachment
No. 67792.

#### Cajo Trading, Inc. (Advance Shipping) *v.*United States,

protest 62/17535 (New York).

*322Opinion by

Wilson, j.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *Falcon Sales Company*and J. *J. Murphy & Co.*v. *United States*(47 Cust. Ct. 129, C.D. 2292), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 179 Filed 11/09/2006 Page 1 of 37
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 179 Filed 11/09/2006 Page 2 of 37
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 179 Filed 11/09/2006 Page 3 of 37
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 179 Filed 11/09/2006 Page 4 of 37
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 179 Filed 11/09/2006 Page 5 of 37
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 179 Filed 11/09/2006 Page 6 of 37
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 179 Filed 11/09/2006 Page 7 of 37
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 179 Filed 11/09/2006 Page 8 of 37
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 179 Filed 11/09/2006 Page 9 of 37
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 179 Filed 11/09/2006 Page 10 of 37
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 179 Filed 11/09/2006 Page 11 of 37
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 179 Filed 11/09/2006 Page 12 of 37
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 179 Filed 11/09/2006 Page 13 of 37
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 179 Filed 11/09/2006 Page 14 of 37
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 179 Filed 11/09/2006 Page 15 of 37
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 179 Filed 11/09/2006 Page 16 of 37
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 179 Filed 11/09/2006 Page 17 of 37
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 179 Filed 11/09/2006 Page 18 of 37
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 179 Filed 11/09/2006 Page 19 of 37
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 179 Filed 11/09/2006 Page 20 of 37
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 179 Filed 11/09/2006 Page 21 of 37
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 179 Filed 11/09/2006 Page 22 of 37
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 179 Filed 11/09/2006 Page 23 of 37
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 179 Filed 11/09/2006 Page 24 of 37
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 179 Filed 11/09/2006 Page 25 of 37
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 179 Filed 11/09/2006 Page 26 of 37
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 179 Filed 11/09/2006 Page 27 of 37
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 179 Filed 11/09/2006 Page 28 of 37
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 179 Filed 11/09/2006 Page 29 of 37
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 179 Filed 11/09/2006 Page 30 of 37
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 179 Filed 11/09/2006 Page 31 of 37
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 179 Filed 11/09/2006 Page 32 of 37
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 179 Filed 11/09/2006 Page 33 of 37
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 179 Filed 11/09/2006 Page 34 of 37
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 179 Filed 11/09/2006 Page 35 of 37
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 179 Filed 11/09/2006 Page 36 of 37
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 179 Filed 11/09/2006 Page 37 of 37
LENNAR PARTNERS

An LNR Company

 

 

March 1, 2002

 

LaSalle Bank, N.A. 135 South LaSalle Street, Suite 1625 Chicago, Illinois 60603

 Attention: Asset Backed Securities Trust Services Group

LB-UBS Commercial Mortgage Trust 2000-C5

Re:	Annual Independent Public Accountant's Servicing Report

	LB-UBS Commercial Mortgage Trust

	Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2000-C5

To whom it may concern:

As of and for the year ended December 31, 2001, Lennar Partners, Inc. has complied in all material respects with the applicable minimum servicing standards set forth in the Mortgage Bankers Association of America's Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers applicable to the commercial and multifamily mortgages for the special servicer as noted in the attachment to this assertion. As of and for this same period, Lennar Partners, Inc. had in effect a fidelity bond in the amount of $10,000,000 and an errors and omissions policy in the amount of $10,000,000.

Sincerely,

LENNAR PARTNERS, INC.

 

 Susan K. Chapman

Susan K. Chapman

Vice	President

 

cc:	Structured Asset Securities Corporation

	200 Vesey Street

	New York, New York 10285

	Attention: LB-UBS Commercial Mortgage Trust, Series 2000-C5

	Lehman Brothers, Inc.

	Three World Financial Center

	New York, New York 10285

	Attention: Tricia Hall/Commercial Mortgage Trading

	UBS Warburg, LLC

	299 Park Avenue

	New York, New York 10171

	Attention: Ahmed Alali

	cc: Robert C. Dinerstein, General Counsel

 

 

 

760 Northwest 107th Avenue Suite 400  Miami, Florida 33172

Telephone: (305) 220-4300   Fax: (305) 226-3428
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 229 (Tuesday, November 29, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 73759]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-30723]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 7700]

Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``Ancient Egypt--Art and Magic: Treasures From the 
Foundation Gandur pour L'Art, Geneva, Switzerland''

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 
of August 28, 2000 (and, as appropriate, Delegation of Authority No. 
257 of April 15, 2003), I hereby determine that the objects to be 
included in the exhibition ``Ancient Egypt--Art and Magic: Treasures 
from the Foundation Gandur pour L'Art, Geneva, Switzerland'' imported 
from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of 
cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to a loan 
agreement with the foreign owner or custodian. I also determine that 
the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at the Museum of Fine 
Arts, St. Petersburg, FL, from on or about December 17, 2011, until on 
or about April 29, 2012, and at possible additional exhibitions or 
venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. I have 
ordered that Public Notice of these Determinations be published in the 
Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of the exhibit objects, contact Julie Simpson, Attorney-Adviser, 
Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: (202) 
632-6467). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, SA-5, L/PD, 
Fifth Floor (Suite 5H03), Washington, DC 20522-0505.

    Dated: November 22, 2011.
J. Adam Ereli,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and 
Cultural Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2011-30723 Filed 11-28-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
```
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-6532
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RONALD TYRONE SMITH, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at A lexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-94-132, CA-97-309-AM) Submitted: February 12, 1998 Decided: February 26, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Ronald Tyrone Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Marcus John Davis, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion andfind no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Smith , Nos. CR-94-132; CA-97-309-AM (E.D. Va. Mar. 4, 1997). 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