alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2017144EN.01003401.xml

| 8.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/34

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2017 — Estonia v Commission

(Case T-117/15) (1)

1

((Actions for annulment - Agriculture - Common organisation of the markets - Measures to be adopted in consequence of the accession of new Member States - Amounts to be charged for quantities of surplus sugar not eliminated - Request for modification of a final decision of the Commission - Refusal of the request - Act not open to challenge - Confirmatory measure - No new substantive particulars - Inadmissibility))

(2017/C 144/44)

Language of the case: Estonian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Estonia (represented by: K. Kraavi-Käerdi, acting as Agent)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by L. Naaber-Kivisoo and M.P. Ondrůšek, acting as Agents, then by P. Ondrůšek, assisted by M. Kärson, lawyer)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the applicant: Republic of Latvia (represented by I. Kalniņš and D. Pelše, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant:

Re:

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the decision allegedly contained in the European Commission’s letter of 22 December 2014 declining to amend European Commission Decision 2006/776/EC of 13 November 2006 on the amounts to be charged for the quantities of surplus sugar not eliminated (OJ 2006 L 314, p. 35).

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action as inadmissible.

| 2. | Orders the Republic of Estonia to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Republic of Estonia to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

| 3. | Orders the Republic of Latvia to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Republic of Latvia to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 171, 26.5.2015.

1

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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   14,164
<ALLOWANCES>                                       313
<INVENTORY>                                     23,547
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                39,904
<PP&E>                                          27,756
<DEPRECIATION>                                  16,265
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  66,974
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           14,778
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,073
<OTHER-SE>                                      38,948
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    66,974
<SALES>                                         82,084
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                82,084
<CGS>                                           49,618
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   49,618
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                24,279
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    59
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 852
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,606
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,890
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,574
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,574
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.08
        

</TABLE>
#### Barbara Jean SEALS, Appellant, v. MISSOURI DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATION, CITY OF ST. LOUIS; Missouri Department of Labor and Industrial Relations; City of St. Louis; Missouri Department of Revenue; Department of Revenue Service Center; Robert Young Building Internal Revenue Service Center; Department of Housing and Urban Development; Christopher “Kit” Bond; John Ashcroft, Appellees.

No. 04-3764.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: Aug. 3, 2005.

Decided: Aug. 9, 2005.

Barbara Jean Seals, St. Louis, MO, pro se.

Before MELLOY, MAGILL, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Barbara J. Seals appeals from the district court’s order dismissing her civil ac*728tion under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) without prejudice. We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. The judgment is not a final, appealable order because it does not rule on claims against a number of defendants—for example, Ameren UE, Laclede Gas Company, and Today Office Staffing, Inc.—who were clearly named in various pleadings that were incorporated into the complaint by the court as amended complaints. *See*28 U.S.C. § 1291 (creating appellate jurisdiction over final decisions of district courts); Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b) (“order or other form of decision, however designated, which adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties shall not terminate the action as to any of the claims or parties”).

Therefore, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. *See Thomas*v. *Basham,*931 F.2d 521, 522-24 (8th Cir.1991) (appellate courts have obligation to raise jurisdictional issues sua sponte “when there is an indication that jurisdiction is lacking”; appeal was “clearly premature” where some claims were still pending).
May 22, 1961

No. 65707.

Suit 5010.

#### Inter Continental Equipment Co. and Rohner Gehrig & Co., Inc. *v.*United States.

C.D. 2090 affirmed February 6,1961. C.A.D. 765.
EXHIBIT 32.1
                                                                    ------------


                         CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 906
                                     OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Unico American
Corporation (the "Company") for the period ended June 30, 2004, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission as of the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Erwin Cheldin, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-
Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
    the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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



                    /s/  Erwin Cheldin
                    ------------------
           Name:    Erwin Cheldin
           Title:   Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer
           Date:    August 12, 2004




A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to Unico American Corporation, and
will be retained by Unico American Corporation, and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
### EPA Listening Sessions on Existing Power Plant Rule

My name is Sister Mary Elizabeth Clark, aSister ofSt. Joseph of Philadelphia. Iam here today representing the Sisters ofSt. Joseph and Chestnut Hill College of Philadelphia. Iam also an Ambassador ofthe U.S. Catholic Bishops Climate Change Coalition. Speaking from afaith perspective and the moral imperative ofdoing no harm to God's creation, Iimploreyou towrite Emission Guidelines for reducing carbon pollution from existing fossil fuel power plants that truly make a differencefor global climate. As Pope Francis has said in his call to us all, "Whenever human beings fail to live up to environmental responsibility, whenever we fail to care for creation and for our brothers and sisters, the way is opened to destruction and hearts are hardened. "Let us be protectors of creation." The tradition ofCatholic social teaching offers adeveloping and distinctive perspective on environmental issues. We believe thatthe following themes drawn from the tradition are integral dimensions of ecological responsibility:

• A God-centered and sacramental view ofthe universe, which grounds human accountability forthe fate ofthe earth; • A consistent respect for human life which extends to respect for all creation; • Aworld view affirming the ethical significance ofglobal interdependence and the common good; • An ethics ofsolidarity promoting cooperation and ajust structure ofsharing in the world community; • An understanding ofthe universal purpose ofcreated things, which requires equitable use ofthe earth's resources; • An option forthe poor, which gives passion tothe quest foran equitable and sustainable world; • A conception ofauthentic development, which offers a direction for progress that respects human dignity and the limits of material growth. In Centesimus Annus, former Pope Benedict XVI insisted thatthe state has the task of providing "forthe defense and preservation ofcommon good such as the natural and human environments, which cannot be safeguarded simply by marketforces." (#40) You can see that all ofthese principles apply toyour decisions about writing emission rules forfossil fuel power plants. Today, as you consider providing carbon limits on fossil fuel plants, which are the single largest source of climate pollution in the US, most often located in poor communities, I urge you to make sure that those limits truly do the job of reducing pollution and global climate change. Although as a member of PA Interfaith Power 

### & Light, we do our best to reduce our own carbon footprint, this pales in the presence of coal powered plants. We know millions ofAmericans join us in supporting these limits. Please do the right thing. 7/16/2014

Mary Elizabeth Clark, SS)., mcla_rk@ssjphila.org, Sisters ofSaintjoseph Earth Ctr., 9601 GermantownAve., Phila, PA 18118
# C_2015279EN.01006102.xml

| 24.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 279/61 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/61

---

Action brought on 15 June 2015 — ZZ/Commission

(Case F-88/15)

(2015/C 279/79)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by M. Velardo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision not to promote the applicant to the next higher grade (AD 12) as part of the European Commission’s promotion procedure for the year 2014 and claim for damages for the non-material harm allegedly suffered.

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision not to promote the applicant to grade AD 12 including to the list published on 14 November 2014 and the response of the appointing authority to the complaint dated 5 March 2015; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision not to promote the applicant to grade AD 12 including to the list published on 14 November 2014 and the response of the appointing authority to the complaint dated 5 March 2015;

| — | Grant the sum of EUR 10  000 on the basis of the non-material harm suffered; |
| --- | --- |

—

Grant the sum of EUR 10  000 on the basis of the non-material harm suffered;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs incurred by the applicant during the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs incurred by the applicant during the proceedings.

---
**EXHIBIT32.1**

**Union Carbide Corporation andSubsidiaries**

**Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

I, John R. Dearborn,President and Chief Executive Officer of Union Carbide Corporation (the “Corporation”),certify that:

1.               the QuarterlyReport on Form 10-Q of the Corporation for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”) fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934; and

2.               the informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Corporation.

 

 
| /s/ JOHN R. DEARBORN                  |   |
|---------------------------------------|--------|
| John R. Dearborn                      |   |
| President and Chief Executive Officer |   |
| May 1, 2007                           |   |

 

23

----
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion

should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-60980

Summary Calendar

KIRAN IQBAL

Petitioner

v.

MICHAEL B MUKASEY, U S ATTORNEY GENERAL

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A97 545 982

Before KING, GARWOOD and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Kiran Iqbal petitions for review ofthe decision ofthe Board of Immigration

Appeals (BIA) affirming the decision of the immigration judge (IJ) to deny her

application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention

Against Torture. The BIA adopted the IJ’s conclusion that Iqbal had failed to

present evidence that she would be a target for persecution or torture if she

returned to Pakistan. In her petition, Iqbal argues that her credible testimony

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 17, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-60980

2

and the State Department’s Country Report support her claims that she has a

reasonable fear of future persecution.

The BIA’s (and IJ’s) finding that Iqbal’s fears were not objectively

reasonable is supported by the record; the record clearly does not compel a

contrary conclusion. Iqbal failed to make any showing that she suffered past

persecution. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b). Additionally, Iqbal has not shown that

she faces a reasonable fear of future persecution if she returns to Pakistan. See

id. Iqbal at no time participated in any political party or function or expressed

any political view. The asserted 1999 injuries to her father and 2004 injuries to

her brother – which are evidenced only by Iqbal’s testimony as to what her

mother (or brother) told her before Iqbal left Pakistan, not by any personal

observation or knowledge on Iqbal’s part – do not suffice of themselves to

establish Iqbal’s asylum claims. See Arif v. Mukasey, 509F.3d 677, 681 n.15 (5th

Cir. 2007); Abdel-Masieh v. INS, 73 F.3d 579, 584 (5th Cir. 1996). And Iqbal

failed to reasonably explain why no corroborating evidence – such as letters or

affidavits – was procured from her mother or brother despite Iqbal having

remained in contact with them since she left Pakistan. Moreover, the fact that

Iqbal’s mother remains inPakistan and continues working for the political party

without evidence of harm or threat diminishes the reasonableness of Iqbal’s

fears of persecution. See Eduard v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 182, 193 (5th Cir. 2004).

Because Iqbal has not satisfied the asylum standard, she cannot meet the

more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See id. at 186 n.2. Iqbal’s

claim under the Convention Against Torture is also without merit, as the record

does not compel a finding that Iqbal will more likely than not be tortured if she

is returned to Pakistan. See Bah v. Ashcroft, 341 F.3d 348, 352 (5th Cir. 2003);

Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 907 (5th Cir. 2002). 

Iqbal’s petition for review is DENIED.
# C_2016098EN.01001901.xml

| 14.3.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 98/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.3.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 98/19

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven (Netherlands) lodged on 7 December 2015 — Robeco Hollands Bezit NV and Others v Stichting Autoriteit Financiële Markten (AFM)

(Case C-658/15)

(2016/C 098/24)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Robeco Hollands Bezit NV, Robeco Duurzaam Aandelen NV, Robeco Safe Mix NV, Robeco Solid Mix NV, Robeco Balanced Mix NV, Robeco Growth Mix NV, Robeco Life Cycle Funds NV, Robeco Afrika Fonds NV, Robeco Global Stars Equities, Robeco All Strategy Euro Bonds, Robeco High Yield Bonds, Robeco Property Equities

Appellants:

Respondent: Stichting Autoriteit Financiële Markten (AFM)

Respondent:

Question referred

Question referred

Must a system in which multiple fund agents and brokers participate who, within that system, represent respectively ‘open end’ investment funds and investors in commercial transactions, and which, in fact, facilitates exclusively those ‘open end’ investment funds in their obligation to execute the purchase and selling orders for shares placed by investors, be regarded as a regulated market within the meaning of Article 4(1).14 of the MiFID (1) and, if so, what characteristics are determinant in that regard?

1

---

(1)  Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on markets in financial instruments, amending Council Directives 85/611/EEC and 93/6/EEC and Directive 2000/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 93/22/EEC (OJ 2004 L 145, p. 1).

1

---
#### Peter Guille, Ltd., et al. *v.*United States

No. 6740.

Entry No. 758886, etc.

Invoices dated London-, England, March 28, 1941, etc.

Certified March 28, 1941, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., April 28, 1941, etc.

(Decided January 10, 1947)

*Brooks & Brooks*for the plaintiffs.

*Paul P. Bao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Lawrence, Judge:

It has been agreed between the parties hereto that the issues herein relating to the merchandise above mentioned are the same in all material respects as those decided in *United States v. Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.,*
      *28633 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 183, C. A. D. 334, and that the record therein may be incorporated herein.

Upon the agreed facts I find the export value, as defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for determining the value of said merchandise, and that such values are the appraised values, less additions made by importers on entries because of advances by the appraiser in similar eases.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
RE: Blue Diamond Closing Date 

BRUCE NIXON 

to: 

Idalia Perez 

05/13/2010 07:52 AM 

Show Details 

History: This message has been forwarded. 

05-13-2010

 

Hi Idalia,

 

Yes, Blue Diamond has operated the only biomass fueled boiler in the SMAQMD in the past 20 years.

 

Please contact me if you have any other questions.

 

Bruce Nixon, P.E. 

Air Quality Engineer 

Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District 

777 12th Street 3rd Floor 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

phone: (916) 874-4855 (Tue., Thur.) 

email: bnixon@airquality.org 

******************************************* 

From: Perez.Idalia@epamail.epa.gov [mailto:Perez.Idalia@epamail.epa.gov] 

Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 10:51 AM 

To: BRUCE NIXON 

Cc: Hong.Jeanhee@epamail.epa.gov 

Subject: RE: Blue Diamond Closing Date 

Bruce, 

Could you confirm that Blue Diamond was the only facility in SMAQMD that had a biomass boiler in the past 20 

years? 

Thank you, 

-Idalia 

_____________________ 

Idalia M. Pérez, Ph.D. 

Rulemaking Office, Air Division 

US EPA (AIR-4) 

75 Hawthorne St. 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

Phone: 415.972.3248 

Fax: 415.947.3579 

From: "BRUCE NIXON" <BNIXON@airquality.org>

To: Idalia Perez/R9/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 02/08/2010 07:01 AM

Subject: RE: Blue Diamond Closing Date

Page 1 of 2

file://C:\Documents and Settings\iperez\Local Settings\Temp\notesBAAA25\~web0259.htm 8/10/2010
02-08-2010 

 

Hi Idalia, 

 

Yes, March 1996 is correct. 

 

Bruce Nixon, P.E. 

Air Quality Engineer 

Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District 

777 12th Street 3rd Floor 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

phone: (916) 874-4855 (Tue., Thur.) 

email: bnixon@airquality.org 

*******************************************

From: Perez.Idalia@epamail.epa.gov [mailto:Perez.Idalia@epamail.epa.gov] 

Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 10:42 AM

To: BRUCE NIXON

Subject: Blue Diamond Closing Date

Hi Bruce, 

Just wanted to confirm what you had said over the phone. I believe the voicemail you left said that the Blue 

Diamond facility ceased operations in March 1996. Is this correct? 

Thanks for the information, 

-Idalia

_____________________ 

Idalia M. Perez, Ph.D. 

Rulemaking Office, Air Division 

US EPA (AIR-4) 

75 Hawthorne St. 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

Phone: 415.972.3248 

Fax: 415.947.3579

Page 2 of 2

file://C:\Documents and Settings\iperez\Local Settings\Temp\notesBAAA25\~web0259.htm 8/10/2010
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Corporate Trust Services**MAC R1204-0109062 Old Annapolis RoadColumbia, MD 21045Tel: 410 884 2000 Fax: 410 715 2380 |
|--------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

 

Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage Securities, Inc. 

375 PARK AVE FL 2

Wells Fargo Securities, LLC

NEW YORK,  New York  10152-0002

 

 

RE: Annual Statement of Compliance for Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage Securities, Inc., Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2015-P2

 

Per the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of December 1, 2015 (the "Agreement"), the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Certificate Administrator ("Wells Fargo"), hereby certifies as follows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2015 (the "Reporting Period"):

 

(a) A review of Wells Fargo's activities during the Reporting Period and of its performance under the Agreement has been made under such officer's supervision; and

 

(b) To the best of such officer's knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.

 

 

February 25, 2016

 

/s/Brian Smith

BRIAN SMITH

Vice President

 

 

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
Exhibit 99.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         I, Gordon R. Arnold,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as
adopted  pursuant to Section  906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  that the
quarterly report of Sierra Monitor  Corporation on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2002 fully complies with the  requirements of Section
13(a) or  15(d)  of the  Securities  Exchange  Act of 1934 and that  information
contained  in such  quarterly  report  on Form  10-QSB  fairly  presents  in all
material  respects the  financial  condition and results of operations of Sierra
Monitor Corporation.


Date:  November 13, 2002                    By:    /s/ Gordon R. Arnold
                                                   -----------------------------
                                                   Gordon R. Arnold
                                                   Chief Executive Officer
                                                   Chief Financial Officer


                                                                   Page 15 of 15