alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2017070EN.01001901.xml

| 6.3.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 70/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.3.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 70/19

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 January 2017 — Nausicaa Anadyomène and Banque d’escompte v ECB

(Case T-749/15) (1)

1

((Non-contractual liability - Economic and monetary policy - ECB - National central banks - Restructuring of the Greek public debt - Programme for purchasing securities - Securities exchange agreement for the sole benefit of central banks in the Eurosystem - Private sector involvement - Collective action clauses - Credit enhancement in the form of a buyback programme intended to support the quality of the securities as collateral - Private creditors - Commercial banks - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals - Legitimate expectations - Equal treatment))

(2017/C 070/26)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Nausicaa Anadyomène SAS (Paris, France) and Banque d’escompte (Paris) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Tymen, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: O. Heinz, G. Varhelyi and F. von Lindeiner, acting as Agents, and by H.-G. Kamann, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the loss allegedly sustained by the applicants following, in particular, the adoption of ECB Decision 2012/153/EU of 5 March 2012 on the eligibility of marketable debt instruments issued or fully guaranteed by the Hellenic Republic in the context of the Hellenic Republic’s debt exchange offer (ECB/2012/3) (OJ 2012 L 77, p. 19) and also of other ECB measures linked to the restructuring of the Greek public debt.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Nausicaa Anadyomène SAS and Banque d’escompte to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Nausicaa Anadyomène SAS and Banque d’escompte to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 68, 22.2.2016.

1

---
ex_358435.htm


 


 


Exhibit 10.1


 


	
			 


			Addendum No. 3 dated 16.03.2022


			Contract No 840/08625142/31/22-21

			
	
			THE SELLER


			Isotope - Regional Alliance, Joint-Stock Company (Isotope JSC)


			Pogodinskaya str., 22,


			Moscow, 119435, Russia.


			Phone: +7 (495) 981-96-16/17

			
	
			THE BUYER


			The Company IsoRay Medical Inc.


			350 Hills Street, Suite 106


			Richland, WA 99354-5411 USA

			
	
			THE BUYER and THE SELLER have mutually agreed on the following:


			Consignee under the Contract may be the following organization:


			Moving Forward International GmbH


			Cargo City South, Bldg 638b, 60549 Frankfurt, Germany


			Tel.: +49 (0) 69 9686 123 10


			Airport of destination: Frankfurt, Germany

			
	
			All other terms and conditions are in accordance with Contract No. 840/08625142/31/22-21, Addendum 1-2.


			The present Addendum No.3 is an integral part of the Contract and may be signed via facsimile or e- mail.

			



 


 


	
			 


			/s/Konstantin Ershov, Head of Supplies


			THE SELLER


			 

				
			 


			/s/Jennifer Streeter, COO, March 16, 2022


			THE BUYER
Case No. 15,220.

#### UNITED STATES v. GODDARD.

[4 Cranch, C. C. 444.]1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

March Term, 1834.

Criminal Practice—Multiplying Indictments.

Nine cows, belonging to divers persons, were stolen by the defendant from the commons, in or about the city of Washington, and the grand jury found nine separate indictments. Six were averred to be on the same day. The court refused to quash any of them.

The grand jury found nine indictments against the defendant [Joseph Goddard] for stealing nine cows belonging to nine different persons. Six of them were charged to have been stolen on the same day, the 14th of October, 1833.

Mr. Z. C. Lee, for defendant,

moved the court to quash the six indictments in which the thefts viere charged to have been committed on the same day, insisting that the six indictments were all for one and the same of-fence; and cited 1 Chit. Cr. Law. 254. The defendant may be punished six times as much as if the whole were included in one indictment, and the United States will be charged $90 for attorney’s fees in nine cases, when, in truth, there was but one theft, and one attorney’s fee of $10 only should be charged.

Mr. Key, Dist. Atty., contra.

It does not appear that it was only one theft because charged on the same day. If all had been charged in one indictment, the defendant might have objected; but he cannot object to their being separately charged..

Mr. Hall, for defendant,

in reply. It is an application to the discretion of the court. If the attorney might have joined them in one indictment, they ought to be so joined.

1

 [Reported by Hon. William Cranch, Chief Judge.]

THE COURT

(THRUSTON, Circuit Judge, contra)

refused to quash any of the indictments, because it did not appear to them that the cows were all stolen at the same time and place. It is true that they were all averred to have been stolen in this county, and six of them on the 14th of October, 1833; but as the day was immaterial, and perhaps could not be exactly ascertained in evidence, and it was competent for the United States to prove that they were stolen on different days, and, if so, were separate acts of stealing, and separate offences, the court could not say they were not, and would do wrong-to quash them, especially as the cows belonged to divers persons. If they had all been contained in one indictment, the defendant might have objected to it, and perhaps have obliged the attorney of the United States to make his election as to which theft he would prosecute; and, if they had. been charged in separate counts, as they should if they were separate offences, the-punishment might be exactly the same as if' they had been charged in separate indictments; for each offence must have its separate punishment, and the only difference-would be in the costs. If one only of the-six should be retained for trial, who should say which it should be? and perhaps the one-selected might be the only one which the-United States could not support. See U. S. v. Beerman [Case No. 14,560], March term. 1838.
(Reap. Dec. 9574)

#### Associated Customhouse Brokees *v.*United States

Entry No. 504.

(Decided December 30, 1959)

*Barnes, Richardson & Colburn*for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Lawrence, Judge:

The above-enumerated appeal for a reappraisement presents the question of the proper value for appraisement purposes of certain telephone apparatus, imported from Belgium.

By stipulation of the parties hereto, it has been agreed that, on or about the date of exportation of the instant merchandise, such or similar merchandise was not freely offered for sale in Belgium either for home consumption or for export to the United States; that, on or about said date, such or similar imported merchandise was not freely offered for sale for domestic consumption in the United States; and that the cost of production of said merchandise, as such cost is defined in section 402(f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, is the invoice unit values, less 1.82 per centum.

Upon the agreed facts of record, I find and hold that cost of production, as that value is defined in section 402(f) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1402(f)), is the proper basis of value for the telephone apparatus in issue and that said value is the invoice unit values, less 1.82 per centum.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 123 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.Con.Res.123
                                                  Agreed to May 16, 2007

                       One Hundred Tenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday,
            the fourth day of January, two thousand and seven

                          Concurrent Resolution

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),

SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF USE OF CAPITOL GROUNDS FOR D.C. SPECIAL 
              OLYMPICS LAW ENFORCEMENT TORCH RUN.

    On June 8, 2007, or on such other date as the Speaker of the House 
of Representatives and the Committee on Rules and Administration of the 
Senate may jointly designate, the 2007 District of Columbia Special 
Olympics Law Enforcement Torch Run (in this resolution referred to as 
the ``event'') may be run through the Capitol Grounds as part of the 
journey of the Special Olympics torch to the District of Columbia 
Special Olympics summer games.

SEC. 2. RESPONSIBILITY OF CAPITOL POLICE BOARD.

    The Capitol Police Board shall take such actions as may be 
necessary to carry out the event.

SEC. 3. CONDITIONS RELATING TO PHYSICAL PREPARATIONS.

    The Architect of the Capitol may prescribe conditions for physical 
preparations for the event.

SEC. 4. ENFORCEMENT OF RESTRICTIONS.

    The Capitol Police Board shall provide for enforcement of the 
restrictions contained in section 5104(c) of title 40, United States 
Code, concerning sales, advertisements, displays, and solicitations on 
the Capitol Grounds, as well as other restrictions applicable to the 
Capitol Grounds, in connection with the event.
Attest:

                                 Clerk of the House of Representatives.

Attest:

                                               Secretary of the Senate.
```
PROFITCOM.COM, INC.
           (INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE)

This certifies that ----------

is the registered owner of ----------------

fully paid and non-assessable shares of common stock, $.001 par value each of

                               PROFITCOM.COM, INC.

    Transferable  on the books of the Corporation in person or by  attorney upon
surrender of this  Certificate  duly endorsed or assigned.  This Certificate and
the shares represented hereby  are subject to the laws of the State of Delaware,
and to the Certificate of Incorporation  and By-laws of the Corporation,  as now
or hereafter amended.  This Certificate is not valid unless countersigned by the
Transfer Agent

     WITNESS the facsimile seal of the Corporation and the facsimile  signatures
of its duly authorized officers.

Dated: ----------------

                               PROFITCOM.COM, INC.
/s/Mark Greenberg                CORPORATE SEAL            /s/Dejan Mirkovic
------------------                    1999                 --------------------
  Secretary                         DELAWARE                 President

                                                                Countersigned:
                                        Olde Monmouth Stock Transfer Co., Inc.
                                                                Transfer Agent

                                                          AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE

<PAGE>





     The following  abbreviations,  when used in the  inscription on the face of
this  certificate,  shall be  construed  as though they were written out in full
according to applicable laws or regulations:

TEN COM - as tenants in common
TEN ENT - as tenants by the entireties
JT TEN -  as joint tenants with right of
        survivorship and not as tenants
        in common and not as community property

UNIFORM GIFTS TO MINORS ACT

( Custodian)                       (Minor)
under the Uniform Gifts of Minors Act of  the State of ------------------

FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned hereby sells, assigns and transfers unto:

Please insert social security
or other identifying number: -----------------

(Insert name and address, including zip code):

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

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

--------------------------------------------- shares

of the Common Stock represented by the within Certificate and do hereby
irrevocably constitute and appoint

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

to transfer the said shares on the books of the within named Corporation
with full power of substitution in the premises.



DATED: -------------                  ---------------------------------------


    NOTICE:  The signature to this  assignment must correspond with the name as
it is  written  upon the face of the  Certificate  in every  particular  without
alteration or enlargement or any change whatever.


SIGNATURE GUARANTEE:
Case: 2:12-cv-01188-EAS-EPD Doc #: 54 Filed: 11/15/13 Page: 1 of 1  PAGEID #: <pageID>

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2015-05-11T12:26:14-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Mr. Steven C. Whitworth 

Senior Director 

Environmental Policy and Ana lysis 

Ameren Corporation 

1901 Chouteau Avenue, Me 1370 

St. Louis, Missouri 63 I 03 

Dear Mr. Whitworth: 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

I am responding to the Ameren Corporation petition for reconsideration of the final action, titled 

"Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from New, Modified, and Reconstructed 

Stationary Sources: Electri c Utility Generating Units," which was published in the Federal Register on 

October 23, 2015 (80 FR 645 1 0). 

Section 307( d)(7)(B) of the Clean Air Act sets forth the criteria for reconsideration. That section states 

that " [ o ]nly an objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable specificity during the 

period for public comment (including any public hearing) may be raised during judicial review. If the 

person raising an objection can demonstrate to the Administrator that it was impractical to raise such 

objection within such time or if the grounds for such objection arose after the period for public comment 

(but within the time specified for judicial review) and if such objection is of central relevance to the 

outcome of the rule, the Administrator shall convene a proceeding for reconsideration of the rule and 

provide the same procedural rights as would have been afforded had the information been avai lable at 

the time the rule was proposed." 

After careful consideration of the issues raised in the Ameren Corporation petition, I deny the petition in 

its entirety. None of the objections raised in the petition satisfy the criteria for reconsideration set out in 

the final action, titled "Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from New, Modified, 

and Reconstructed section 307(d)(7)(B)." My reasons for this conclusion are fully set forth in an 

enclosed memorandum, "Basis for Denial of Petitions to Reconsider the CAA Section 111 (b) Standards 

of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from New, Modified, and Reconstructed Fossil FuelFired Electric Utility Generating Units," which is also available in the rulemaking dockets. 

Enclosure 

This paper is printed with vegetable-oil-based inks and is 100·percent postconsumer recycled material, chlorine-free-processed and recyclable.
#### Asa Bither *versus*David S. Buswell.

The statute requires that a mortgage of personal property exceeding a specified value shall be recorded in the records of the town in which the mortgager residesif a case discloses nothing as to the residence of the mortgager, the Validity of the mortgage, though recorded, is not established.

On statement op pacts.

*Sanborn,*for the plaintiff.

*Everett,*for the defendant.

The facts sufficiently appear from the opinion of the Court, which was drawn up by

Dickerson, J.

Replevin of a horse. Both parties claim under one Henry Priest, the plaintiff by mortgage, and the defendant by purchase subsequent to the mortgage. The horse is valued at $65 in the mortgage. The mortgage is dated at Lincoln, and recorded on the records of Medway Plantation. The statement of facts does not disclose the residence of Priest, the mortgager. The R. S., c. 91, § 1, require such mortgage to be recorded in the town where the *602mortgager resides. The burden of proof is on tlie plaintiff to establish this fact. He has not done it. ~

By agreement of parties this Court is authorized to draw such inferences as a Jury might, but it can draw only *such*inferences, and a jury would not be authorized to supply this deficiency in the plaintiff’s case by inference, since there is no fact in the case from which the inference can legitimately be drawn that the plaintiff has complied with the requirement of the statute._ *Plaintiff nonsuit.*

Appleton, C. J., Cutting, Dayis and Barrows, JJ., concurred.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Company's Balance Sheet as of June 30, 1999 and the Statement Of Income
for the year ended June 30, 1999, and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial staements.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          84,125
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                84,125
<PP&E>                                       7,995,908
<DEPRECIATION>                               5,912,462
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,208,737<F1>
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           46,493<F2>
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                    (615,510)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,208,737<F3>
<SALES>                                        534,579<F4>
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               534,579
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                16,957<F5>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              65,904
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                184,428
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            184,428
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   184,428
<EPS-BASIC>                                   256.15<F6>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   256.15<F6>
<FN>
<F1>Includes unamortized mortgage refinancing costs
<F2>Accrued interest on mortgage and first mortgage principal payment due
    within one year
<F3>Includes long-term debt
<F4>Rental income includes basic rent and advance of primary overage rent
<F5>Supervisory services and amortization of mortgage refinance costs
<F6>Earnings per $5,000 participation unit, based on 720 participation units
    outstanding during the period




</TABLE>
No. 41980.

#### Protests 50894-G, etc., of Bernard Judae & Co. (New York).

*358Opinion by

Tilson, ,J.

From the record it was found that certain items consist of articles in chief value of cellulose filaments similar to those involved in Abstract 37230. The claim at 60 percent under paragraph 31 was therefore sustained.
No. 55456.

#### M. Kopit Co. *v.*United States,

protest 128384-K (New York).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of platinum fox fur skins, undressed, similar in all" material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. O. *Brager-Larsen*(36 C. C. P. A. 1, C. A. D. 388). The claim for free entry under paragraph 1681 was therefore sustained.
# C_2017309EN.01000701.xml

| 18.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 309/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 309/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 July 2017 — Czech Republic v European Commission

(Case C-696/15 P) (1)

1

((Appeal - Transport - Directive 2010/40/EU - Deployment of Intelligent Transport Systems in the field of road transport - Article 7 - Delegation of power to the European Commission - Limits - Delegated Regulation (EU) No 885/2013 - Provision of information services for safe and secure parking places for trucks and commercial vehicles - Delegated Regulation (EU) No 886/2013 - Data and procedures for the provision of road safety-related minimum universal traffic information free of charge to users - Article 290 TFEU - Explicit definition of the objectives, content, scope and duration of the delegation of power - Essential element of the matter in question - Establishment of a supervisory body))

(2017/C 309/08)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, J. Vláčil, T. Müller and J. Pavliš, Agents)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Buchet, P.J.O. Van Nuffel, J. Hottiaux and Z. Malůšková, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders the Czech Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Czech Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 78, 29.2.2016.

1

---
# C_2016038EN.01003702.xml

| 1.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/37

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 23 November 2015 — Concurrence Sàrl v Samsung Electronics France SAS, Amazon Services Europe Sàrl

(Case C-618/15)

(2016/C 038/51)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Concurrence Sàrl

Applicant:

Defendants: Samsung Electronics France SAS, Amazon Services Europe Sàrl

Defendants:

Question referred

Question referred

Is Article 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (1) to be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of an alleged breach of a prohibition on resale outside a selective distribution network and via a marketplace by means of online offers for sale on a number of websites operated in various Member States, an authorised distributor which considers that it has been adversely affected has the right to bring an action seeking an injunction prohibiting the resulting unlawful interference in the courts of the territory in which the online content is or was accessible, or must some other clear connecting factor be present?

1

---

(1)  OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1.

1

---