alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2017030EN.01001501.xml

| 30.1.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 30/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.1.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 30/15

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 1st December 2016 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-152/16) (1)

1

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009 - Common rules concerning the conditions to be complied with to pursue the occupation of road transport operator - Article 16(1) and (5) - National electronic register of road transport undertakings - No interconnection with the national electronic registers of other Member States))

(2017/C 030/16)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Hottiaux, Agent)

Applicant:

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: D. Holderer, Agent)

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| (1) | Declares that, by failing to have established a national electronic register of road transport undertakings which complies fully and which is interconnected with the national electronic registers of the other Member States, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 16(1) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 establishing common rules concerning the conditions to be complied with to pursue the occupation of road transport operator and repealing Council Directive 96/26/EC. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Declares that, by failing to have established a national electronic register of road transport undertakings which complies fully and which is interconnected with the national electronic registers of the other Member States, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 16(1) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 establishing common rules concerning the conditions to be complied with to pursue the occupation of road transport operator and repealing Council Directive 96/26/EC.

| (2) | Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 191, 30.5.2016.

1

---
**EXHIBIT 23.2**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-151898 on Form S-3 of our report dated February 27, 2009 (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the adoption of new accounting standards), relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedules of Interstate Power and Light Company and subsidiary, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Interstate Power and Light Company for the year ended December 31, 2008.

 

/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

 

Milwaukee, Wisconsin

February 27, 2009
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Withdrawing Petitioner’s Motion For Leave to File Third Amd. Complaint, etc. 

1

BILL LOCKYER

Attorney General of the State of California

ROBERT R. ANDERSON

Chief Assistant Attorney General

MARY JO GRAVES

Senior Assistant Attorney General

STEPHEN G. HERNDON

Supervising Deputy Attorney General

CRAIG S. MEYERS, State Bar No. 178350

Deputy Attorney General

1300 I Street, Suite 125

P.O. Box 944255

Sacramento, CA 94244-2550

Telephone: (916) 324-5280

Fax: (916) 324-2960

Email: Craig.Meyers@doj.ca.gov

Attorneys for Respondent 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EASTERN DIVISION

STEVEN ANTHONY GUZMAN,

Petitioner,

v.

A. LAMARQUE, Warden,

Respondent.

CIV-S-04-0700 FCD GGH P

STIPULATION AND ORDER

WITHDRAWING

PETITIONER’S MOTION

FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIRD

AMENDED PETITION AND

TO STAY PROCEEDINGS;

GRANTING PETITIONER 30

DAYS TO FILE TRAVERSE

STIPULATION

On April 20, 2006, counsel for petitioner filed a “Request For Extension Of Time To File

Traverse And For Permission To File A Third Amended Petition, Then To Stay & Abey Proceedings

Pending Exhaustion Of State Court Remedies.” On April 26, 2006, counsel for petitioner agreed to

re-notice her motion until July 27, 2006, to await the outcome of the Supreme Court’s ruling in

Clark v. Arizona (cert. granted Dec. 5, 2005, No. 05-5966).

/ / /

Clark v. Arizona, --- S.Ct. ----, 2006 WL 1764372 (U.S.Ariz., June 29, 2006) was decided

Case 2:04-cv-00700-FCD-GGH Document 29 Filed 07/05/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Withdrawing Petitioner’s Motion For Leave to File Third Amd. Complaint, etc. 

2

today against Petitioner’s proposed new claim. Counsel discussed the Clark case today and counsel

for petitioner requested that counsel for respondent file this stipulation.

In light of the Clark case, the parties HEREBY STIPULATE that petitioner’s motion

scheduled for July 27, 2006, be withdrawn. 

The parties FURTHER STIPULATE that the time for petitioner to file his traverse may

be extended until July 31, 2006

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

Dated: June 29, 2006 BILL LOCKYER

Attorney General of the State of California

 /S/ CRAIG S. MEYERS

 BY:__________________________________

Craig S. Meyers

Attorneys for Respondent

Dated: June 29, 2006

 /S/ MARY LOU HILLBERG

__________________________________

Mary Lou Hillberg

Attorney for Petitioner 

ORDER

Upon stipulation of the parties, and good cause appearing therefor, it is HEREBY

ORDERED that petitioner’s motion to stay and amend, scheduled for July 27, 2006, is withdrawn

and taken off calendar. Petitioner’s traverse shall be filed no later than July 31, 2006

IT IS SO ORDERED

Dated:7/5/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

__________________________________

HON. GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

United States Magistrate Judge

guzm0700.po3.wpd

SA2004FH0104

Case 2:04-cv-00700-FCD-GGH Document 29 Filed 07/05/06 Page 2 of 2
exv10w1






Exhibit 10.1




[ORBITZ LETTERHEAD]




June 30, 2008




William C. Cobb

c/o Orbitz Worldwide, Inc.

500 West Madison Street, Suite 1000

Chicago, Illinois 60661




Dear Bill,




     Congratulations. At its June 19 meeting, the Board of Directors (the “Board”) of Orbitz
Worldwide, Inc. (the “Company”) appointed you to the Board, subject to your acceptance of the
appointment. Your appointment will be effective as of the date of your acceptance of this letter
(the “Effective Date”).



     This letter summarizes the compensation you will receive for your service on the Board.




	 	1.	 	Our non-employee directors are eligible to receive an annual
retainer fee (currently $75,000, or $18,750 per quarter).
	 
	 	2.	 	You will receive a $100,000 equity grant, effective as of the
Effective Date. Equity grants to the Company’s non-employee directors are
made in the form of deferred restricted stock units (“DSUs”) under the Orbitz
Worldwide, Inc. Non-Employee Directors Deferred Compensation Plan (the
“Non-Employee Directors Deferred Compensation Plan”). The actual number of
DSUs that will be granted to you will be calculated based on the “fair market
value” of our common stock on the date of grant, as defined under the
Non-Employee Directors Deferred Compensation Plan.
	 
	 	3.	 	You will be eligible to receive additional retainer fees for the
committees on which you serve. Currently, the Chair of the audit committee
receives an additional annual retainer of $20,000, and members of the audit
committee receive an additional annual retainer of $10,000. Currently, the
Chair of the compensation committee receives an additional annual retainer of
$15,000, and members of the compensation committee receive an additional
annual retainer of $7,500.





     All of the foregoing retainers are paid on a quarterly basis at the end of each quarter. Your
retainer will be pro rated based on the number of calendar days of Board
service. Currently, the Company requires that all retainers be paid 50% in the form of DSUs,
with the remaining 50% paid in cash unless you elect to receive all or part of the remaining 50% in
the form of additional DSUs within 30 days of the Effective Date.



 









 





William C. Cobb

June 30, 2008

Page 2 of 2




     If you are in agreement with the terms set forth above, please sign a copy of this letter
where indicated below and return it to me as soon as possible. If you have any questions about
your Board compensation or the Non-Employee Directors Deferred Compensation Plan, please feel free
to contact me.



     Again, I would like to personally welcome you to the Board. We truly value the judgment and
counsel of our Board members, and we look forward to working with you to achieve our future
business goals.



     Best regards,



     /s/ Steve Barnhart




Steve Barnhart

President and Chief Executive Officer



AGREED TO AND ACCEPTED

as of the 3rd day of July, 2008:




	 	 	 
	/s/ William C. Cobb
 

William C. Cobb
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EUGENE EVERETT WELCH, 

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-0739 DFL DAD P

vs.

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY

DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, 

et al.,

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On May 26, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein

which were served on petitioner and which contained notice to petitioner that any objections to

the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Petitioner has filed

objections to the findings and recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-

304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Petitioner was granted three

opportunities to amend his habeas petition to allege claims concerning his rap sheet in the

Case 2:04-cv-00739-DFL-DAD Document 17 Filed 08/23/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

context of either a criminal conviction or a specific parole decision that arose in the Eastern

District of California. Petitioner failed to file an amended petition challenging a specific parole

decision. In his objections to the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations, petitioner

states that the parole board relied on his criminal history transcript at a parole hearing on April

13, 2005. Petitioner does not allege that he has exhausted state court remedies on claims arising

from this recent parole hearing. Having carefully reviewed petitioner’s objections and the entire

file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by

proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed May 26, 2005, are adopted in full; and

2. This action is dismissed without prejudice to the filing of a new action

attacking the April 13, 2005 parole denial after state court remedies have been exhausted.

DATED: 8/22/2005

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00739-DFL-DAD Document 17 Filed 08/23/05 Page 2 of 2
Welcome
 Training Module Topics Below are the training topics you need to view reports and CIRA records. Click **Expand All** to view all resources for your role, or click the arrow next to a module to view the lesson(s) and resources. You can choose to view Web Based Training (WBT) modules, certificates are assigned for critical tasks and are noted by the certificate icon Certificate icon. You can also review Printable Job Aids (PJAs) and Videos that support your OTCnet user training.  Expand All
  GETTING STARTED MODULE 1: OTCNET OVERVIEW 1.1 OTCnet Overview
            PJA
            VideoOTCnet Overview
 MODULE 2: ACCESSING OTCnet Certificate icon2.1 Start and Stop the OTCnet Local Bridge (OLB) Application
            PJA
            VideoStart and Stop the OTCnet Local Bridge (OLB) ApplicationCertificate icon2.2 Request Your OTCnet AccessSelf-Register/Create an Account in SailPoint IIQRequest Your OTCnet Access in SailPoint IIQCertificate icon2.3 Log In to OTCnet OnlineLog In to OTCnet Online
 CHECK PROCESSING ONLINE MODULE 19: VIEWING CHECK PROCESSING REPORTS, CIRA RECORDS, AND HISTORICAL REPORTS Certificate icon19.1 View a Check Processing Report
            PJA
            VideoCIRA CSV ReportCheck Image ReportAgency CIRA ReportLVD Contents ReportOrganization Hierarchy Report215 Deposit Ticket Report5515 Debit Voucher ReportACR Activity ReportStatistical Report19.2 View a CIRA RecordView a CIRA Record19.3 View Historical ReportsCIRA CSV Historical ReportView Previously Generated Historical Reports
 Welcome
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VANCE EDWARD JOHNSON, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0776 LKK EFB P

vs.

D.L. RUNNELS, et al., ORDER REQUESTING CONFIDENTIAL

STATEMENTS RE: CASE SELECTION FOR

Defendants. PRISONER SETTLEMENT PROGRAM

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this action filed pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983. 

The parties to this action shall each, no later than fourteen (14) days from the date of the

order, submit confidential statements as described below. The confidential statements shall not

be served on the opposing party or filed with the court, but instead, delivered by mail, fax, email

or personal delivery to the court’s Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) division at the address,

fax number or email address below and marked “Confidential.” Such statements shall be limited

to five (5) pages and shall include the following:

1) the party’s assessment of whether the instant action is of the type that would benefit 

from a settlement proceeding;

////

1

Case 2:04-cv-00776-TLN-EFB Document 213 Filed 01/31/12 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2) the party’s assessment of what factors, if any, will prevent settlement of this matter

prior to trial; and 

3) any additional information the court may find useful in determining whether to set this

matter for a settlement conference.

Should the Court determine this action to be appropriate for referral to the Prisoner

Settlement Program, the Court will set this matter for settlement conference before a magistrate

judge or district judge.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 30, 2012.

cc: ADR Division, Attention: Sujean Park

US District Court

501 I Street, Suite 4-200

Sacramento, CA 95814

Fax: (916) 491-3912

email: spark@caed.uscourts.gov

2

Case 2:04-cv-00776-TLN-EFB Document 213 Filed 01/31/12 Page 2 of 2
No. 50930.

#### Protest 110616-K/91566 of Rudolph Pristoupinsky (Chicago).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

Plaintiff testified that he was a stamp collector and that he had purchased the stamps in question from the Czechoslovak Philatelic Society in London to be sold by him to stamp collectors. The report of the collector of customs attached to the protest states that the articles in question consist of facsimiles of postage stamps formerly in use in Czechoslovakia and that the articles are not postage stamps within the meaning of paragraph 1771, In support of such view, counsel for the Government in his brief referred to exhibit 6 wherein it is stated that four of the so-called stamps are slightly altered reproductions of Czechoslovak stamps, and that the fifth bears the reproductions of three Czechoslovak stamps. 'It is further argued that the fact that the so-called stamps were issued by the Czechoslovak Philatelic Society of London and sold for the benefit of the Czechoslovak Red Cross in London, which had the approval of the Czechoslovak Government in exile, did not make these particular stamps “postage stamps” within the meaning of paragraph 1771. When the stamps were issued in 1943 and also at the time of their importation in 1944, the *236United States was at war with Germany and Czechoslovakia was entirely und; • the control of Germany. From the record, it did not appear that the said stamp • ever were or could be used as postage stamps, i. e., for mailing purposes, and t! legal authority of the so-called Czechoslovak Government in exile to sanctio . the issuance of the stamps was not shown. However commendable the eff<«9 was to raise funds by the issuance of the stamps in question, it was held that the record did not furnish any competent proof that the stamps are in fact postage stamps within the purview of paragraph 1771. The protest was therefore overruled.
EXHIBIT 21
                            IONICS, INCORPORATED

                       SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

                                                 

                                             State or Other Jurisdiction
        Name                                       of Incorporation     

Agar Technologies Process and Environmental
  Control Ltd.                                       Israel
Apollo Ultrapure Water Systems, Inc.                 California
Aqua Design, Inc.*                                   California
Aquarelle S.A. +                                     France
Elite Chemicals Pty. Ltd.                            Australia
Global Water Services, S.A.++                        Panama
Ionics Asia-Pacific Pte. Ltd.                        Singapore
Ionics (Bermuda) Ltd.*                               Bermuda
Ionics Enersave Engineering Sdn Bhd**                Malaysia
Ionics Foreign Sales Corporation Limited             Jamaica
Ionics France S.A.                                   France
Ionics Iberica, S.A.                                 Spain
Ionics Italba, S.p.A.                                Italy
Ionics (Korea) Ltd.                                  Delaware
Ionics Life Sciences, Inc.                           New Jersey
Ionics Nederland B.V.                                The Netherlands
Ionics Ultrapure Water Corporation                   California
Ionics (U.K.) Limited                                United Kingdom
Ionics Watertec Pty. Ltd.                            Australia
Resources Conservation Co. International             Delaware
Separation Technology, Inc.***                       Minnesota
Sievers Instruments, Inc.                            Colorado
Springfield Elite Technologies, Inc.                 Massachusetts

*   The Registrant, either directly, through Aqua Design, Inc. or
    through Ionics (Bermuda) Ltd., wholly owns nine subsidiary
    corporations incorporated in various Caribbean jurisdictions.
    These subsidiary corporations own and operate, or operate and
    maintain, desalination plants for the supply of potable water
    to resorts, hotels and municipalities.

**  Registrant through Ionics Iberica, S.A. owns 55% of this
    entity.

*** Owns a U.K. subsidiary, SeparaTech Limited.

+   This entity is wholly owned by Ionics France S.A.
++  This entity is wholly owned by Ionics (U.K.) Ltd.
                               E-2
/75
### 600 59 th 

### Street, Room 4001, Galveston County Justice Center, Galveston, Texas 77551

‐ 2388

Phone (409) 766

‐ 2424 Fax (409) 766

‐ 2292 

## John D. Kinard

DISTRICT CLERK 

### GALVESTON COUNTY, TEXAS

May 22, 2015

First Court of Appeals Christopher A Prine Clerk of Court 301 Fannin, 2nd floor
Houston, TX 77002-2066

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT ON APPEAL

IN RE: Cause No . 14-CV-1206, Styled Jose Martinez vs. University of Texas Medical Branch- Filed in 405th District Court of Galveston County, Texas

Dear Clerk:

Please find enclosed a copy of the no tice of appeal filed in the above case. This case is assigned to the 1st Court of Appeals,
Houston, Texas.

Please note the following information: Date of Appealable Order or Judgment: February 25, 2015 Notice of Appeal: May 21, 2015

Motion for New Trial filed: March 30, 2015 Request for Finding of Facts and Conclusions of Law filed: None Trial Judge: Michelle Slaughter Court Reporter: Cylena Korkmas

Request is hereby made that all parties immediately file any designation of mat erial to be included in the Clerk’s record

. Any Motions for Extension of Time to file the record on appeal must be filed directly with the Court of Appeals A copy of this assignment letter is being mailed to all counsel of record. Please file mark the additional copy of this letter and return the same to my office.

Sincerely,

John D. Kinard

District Clerk Galveston County, Texas

By: /s/ Shailja Dixit

, Deputy

### 600 59 th 

### Street, Room 4001, Galveston County Justice Center, Galveston, Texas 77551

‐ 2388

Phone (409) 766

‐ 2424 Fax (409) 766

‐ 2292 Copy sent to

Jose Martinez, Pro Se

TDCJ-ID #1678508 Wayne Scott Unit

6999 Retrieve Angleton, TX 77515

Kyle Smith Attorney for UTMB P. O. Box 12548, Capitol Station Austin, TX 78711

Cylena Korkmas, Court Reporter

Hand-Delivered
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 86-10 Filed 10/12/2004 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 86-10 Filed 10/12/2004 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 86-10 Filed 10/12/2004 Page 3 of 3
**EXHIBIT 21.1**

 

**ALLIANT ENERGY CORPORATION**

**SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT**

 

The following are deemed to be significant subsidiaries of Alliant Energy Corporation as of Dec. 31, 2008:

 

| Name of Subsidiary | State of Incorporation |
|--------------------|------------------------|

 

| Interstate Power and Light Company |   Iowa |
|------------------------------------|------------------|

 

| Wisconsin Power and Light Company | Wisconsin |
|-----------------------------------|-----------|

 

| Alliant Energy Resources, LLC | Wisconsin |
|-------------------------------|-----------|
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 36 (Friday, February 23, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8201-8202]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-3038]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[SGA/DFA-PY 06-01]


Solicitation for Grant Applications (SGA); Women in 
Apprenticeship and Nontraditional Occupations (WANTO) Grants

AGENCY: Employment and Training Administration (ETA), Labor.

ACTION: Notice; Amendment to SGA/DFA-PY-06-01.

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

SUMMARY: The Employment and Training Administration published a 
document in the Federal Register on February 13, 2007 announcing the 
availability of funds and solicitation for

[[Page 8202]]

grant applications (SGA) for the Women in Apprenticeship and 
Nontraditional Occupations (WANTO) grant programs. This notice is an 
amendment to the SGA and it amends the Supplementary Information 
section to correct the number of sections in this SGA.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Stockton, Grant Officer, 
Division of Federal Assistance, at (202) 693-3335.
    Supplementary Information Correction: In the Federal Register of 
February 13, 2007, in FR Doc. E7-2400, in the first sentence (page 
6768), ``This SGA consists of eleven (11) sections'' is corrected to 
read, ``This SGA consists of eight (8) sections.''
    Date: This notice is effective February 23, 2007.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 16th day of February, 2007.
James W. Stockton,
Grant Officer.
[FR Doc. E7-3038 Filed 2-22-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P