alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2019082EN.01003402.xml

| 4.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 82/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 82/34

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — AlzChem v Commission

(Case T-284/15) (1)

((State aid - Chemical industry - Decision to continue the operation of an undertaking during insolvency proceedings - Decision finding no State aid - Action for annulment - Individual concern - Admissibility - Concept of State aid - Advantage - Private creditor test - Whether attributable to the State - Duty to state reasons))

(2019/C 82/38)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: AlzChem AG (Trostberg, Germany) (represented by: initially P. Alexiadis, Solicitor, A. Borsos and I. Georgiopoulos, lawyers, and subsequently P. Alexiadis, A. Borsos, E. Kazili, P. Oravec et K. Csach, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Conte and L. Armati, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Slovak Republic (represented by: B. Ricziová, acting as Agent); and Fortischem a.s. (Nováky, Slovakia) (represented by: C. Arhold, P. Hodál and M. Staroň, lawyers)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Article 2 of Commission Decision (EU) 2015/1826 of 15 October 2014 on State aid SA.33797 — (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) (ex 2011/CP) implemented by Slovakia for NCHZ (OJ 2015 L 269, p. 71).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Article 2 of Commission Decision (EU) 2015/1826 of 15 October 2014 on State aid SA.33797 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) (ex 2011/CP) implemented by Slovakia for NCHZ; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Article 2 of Commission Decision (EU) 2015/1826 of 15 October 2014 on State aid SA.33797 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) (ex 2011/CP) implemented by Slovakia for NCHZ;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those of AlzChem AG; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those of AlzChem AG;

| 3. | Orders the Slovak Republic and Fortischem a.s. to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Slovak Republic and Fortischem a.s. to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 302, 14.9.2015.

---
Exhibit 35.1



|     |  |                                                                                                          
|---- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|LOGO |  | Commercial Mortgage Servicing D1050-084,
8th Fl 401 South Tryon Street
Charlotte, NC 28202 1-800-326-1334

ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

Reference is hereby made to that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of April 1, 2016, by and among CITIGROUP COMMERCIAL
MORTGAGE SECURITIES INC, as Depositor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Master Servicer, C-III ASSET MANAGEMENT LLC, as Special Servicer, PARK BRIDGE LENDER SERVICES LLC, as Operating Advisor and
Asset Representations Reviewer, CITIBANK, N.A., as Certificate Administrator and WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2016-P3
(the Agreement). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

Pursuant to Section 10.08 of this Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice President of Commercial Mortgage Services do hereby certify
that:



| | 1. | A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period from April 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016 (the Reporting Period), and of its performance per the Agreement during such period
has been made under my supervision, and
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 28th day of
February 2017.



|                        
|------------------------
|LOGO                    
|Daniel Bober            
|Executive Vice President
|Wells Fargo Bank        



|                       |  |     
|---------------------- |  | ----
|Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. |  | LOGO
Exhibit 10.2


 


Supplement
to the Exclusive Consulting

and Services Agreement


 


Party A: Beijing Hanze Management Consulting Co., Ltd


Address: Room 1-805, No. 87 West Third Ring North Road, Haidian District,
Beijing


 


Party B: Beijing Yingjun Technology Co., Ltd


Address: Room 058, Third Floor, No. 89 West Third Ring North Road,
Haidian District, Beijing


 


In view of the SEC's increased regulatory requirements
for PRC-listed companies in the United States, the following supplementary terms have been added to the Exclusive Consulting and Services
Agreement (hereinafter referred to as "Original Agreement") signed between the Parties A and B in Beijing, China on May 15,
2019. Whereas and entered into this Supplemental Agreement ("This Agreement") on March 31, 2022 in Beijing, China:


 


	1.	Clause 7.1 of the termination of the original Agreement is hereby amended to:
	 	Unless otherwise required by applicable laws,
Party B shall not have any right to terminate this Agreement in any event.



 


	2.	Except for the contents mentioned in this Agreement, the implementation shall continue with reference
to the original Agreement.



 


In view of this, authorized representatives of
both parties signed this Agreement on the date indicated at the beginning.


 


 


Party A: Beijing Hanze Management Consulting Co., Ltd. (seal)


 


	Authorized Representative:	 /s/ Tian Xiangyang	 
	 	Tian Xiangyang	 




 


 


 


Party B: Beijing Yingjun Technology Co., Ltd. (seal)


 





	Authorized Representative:	 /s/ Tian Xiangyang	 
	 	Tian Xiangyang	 




 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 






    	 	1	 



     


    

 


 


 






    	 	2
May 3, 1971

No. 71-21

#### Terrance N. McArthur, SP-4, U. S. Army v B. G. Long, Commanding Officer USATC, Infantry, Fort Ord, California and COL T. M. Okawachi, Hq Commandant, USATC, Fort Ord, California.

ORDERED that said Petition be, and the same is, hereby dismissed for failure to set forth a ground for the relief requested. Article 2(1), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 802(1); Autry v Hyde, 19 USCMA 433, 42 CMR 35 (1970).
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Charles William COOK, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 03-50139.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Sept. 16, 2005.

Richard Cheng, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Robert L. Swain, Esq., Swain *&*Vance, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: HAWKINS and FISHER, Circuit Judges, and WEINER,* Senior District Judge.

*

 The Honorable Charles R. Weiner, Senior United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.

ORDER

The Supreme Court vacated the judgment in this appeal and remanded for reconsideration in light of *United States v. Booker,*— U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). *Cook v. United States,*— U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 997, 160 L.Ed.2d 1010 (2005). In accordance with the procedures outlined in *United States v. Ameline,*409 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc), we remand Cook’s sentence for the purpose of determining whether the sen-fence imposed would be materially different under *Booker.*
Order filed February 27, 2018 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-17-00922-CR

____________

ANTHONY WAYNE SYKES, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 184th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1513135

O R D E R

The clerk’s record was filed January 2, 2018. On January 9, 2018, this court 

abated the appeal for supplementation of the record.

The Harris County District Clerk is directed to file a supplemental clerk’s 

record on or before March 9, 2018, containing certification of the right to appeal 

signed January 12, 2018.
If the omitted item is not part of the case file, the district clerk is directed to 

file a supplemental clerk’s record containing a certified statement that the omitted 

item is not a part of the case file.

PER CURIAM
#### Walter KOON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Richard L. STALDER; Burl Cain, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 04-31271.

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Sept. 29, 2005.

Walter Koon, Angola, LA, pro se.

Before JOLLY, DAVIS and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Walter Koon, Louisiana death row inmate # 351860, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his civil rights suit, filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Koon’s argument that administrative remedies on the due process and equal protection claims he raised were unavailable to him under *Pope v. State,*792 So.2d 713 (La. 2001) , is unavailing as he is challenging the conditions of his confinement. *See Ferrington v. Louisiana Dep’t of Corr.,*315 F.3d 529, 532 (5th Cir.2002); *Peterson v. Tofton,*828 So.2d 160, 163 (La.Ct.App. 2002) . Inasmuch as the prison’s records show that Koon did not exhaust the instant claims, he has failed to exhaust his admin*631istrative remedies as is required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); *Ferrington,*315 F.3d at 531.

This appeal is without arguable merit and is thus frivolous. *See Howard v. King,*707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.1983). Because it is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2. Koon now has one strike against him under the PLRA. *See*28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); *Adepegba v. Hammons,*103 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir.1996). Koon is CAUTIONED that if he accumulates three strikes, he will no longer be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. *See*28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.

*

 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.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                              TWL CORPORATION

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

     In connection with the Quarterly Report of TWL Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended December 31, 2006 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Dennis J. Cagan, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
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 and 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.


Date:  February 14, 2007           /S/ DENNIS J. CAGAN
                                   -----------------------------
                                       Dennis J. Cagan
                                       Chief Executive Officer

    A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906
    has been provided to TWL Corporation and will be retained by it and
    furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
    request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                      5
<LEGEND>
This  schedule  contains  summary  financial   information  extracted  from  the
Company's  Form 10-Q for the quarter  ended October 31, 1998 and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                      JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                           OCT-31-1998
<CASH>                                                   2,116,587
<SECURITIES>                                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                            5,018,134
<ALLOWANCES>                                               143,343
<INVENTORY>                                              4,155,012
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                        12,099,221
<PP&E>                                                   7,327,277
<DEPRECIATION>                                           9,689,507
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                          23,247,245
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                    4,054,325
<BONDS>                                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                            0
<PREFERRED>                                                      0
<COMMON>                                                   417,856
<OTHER-SE>                                              14,519,486
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                            23,247,245
<SALES>                                                 30,274,980
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                        30,274,980
<CGS>                                                   19,202,569
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                           27,492,789
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                           331,424
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                         331,424
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                          2,450,767
<INCOME-TAX>                                               861,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                      1,589,767
<DISCONTINUED>                                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                  0
<CHANGES>                                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                             1,589,767
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                  .38
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                  .38
        

</TABLE>
(Reap. Dec. 8399)

Entry No. 1140.

#### Frank P. Dow Co. *v.*United States

(Decided March 4, 1955)

*Lawrence & Tuttle*for the plaintiff.

*Warren E. Burger,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Olivee, Chief Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> It is hereby stipulated as follows concerning the merchandise referred to below:

> 1) At the time of exportation of the automobile covered by this appeal, such or similar merchandise was not freely offered for sale from home consumption 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, nor at that time was such or similar merchandise so offered for exportation to the United States; also, at that time such or similar imported merchandise was not freely offered for sale for domestic consumption in the principal market of the United States to all purchasers in wholesale quantities.

> 2) The cost of production of said automobile, as specified in section 402 (f), Tariff Act of 1930, stated in English currency, was £811 — 4-6. There were no packing charges or other costs incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States.

> 3) This case may be deemed to be submitted on this stipulation.

On the agreed, facts I find the cost of production, as that value is defined in section 402 (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such value was English currency £811.4.6.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Peter HALAT, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 04-60089.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Sept. 29, 2005.

Richard Terrell Starrett, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District Of Mississippi, Jackson, MS, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Peter Halat, Jr., Yazoo City, MS, pro se.

Before REAVLEY, HIGGINBOTHAM and GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

We dismiss the appeal for the following reason:

*630In Defendant’s direct appeal, this Court held that “Halat waived his right to appeal his sentence in exchange for the government’s agreement not to appeal a sentence imposed below the guideline range.” *United States v. Sharpe,*193 F.3d 852, 871 (5th Cir.1999). This waiver applies to a collateral attack on the sentence. In *United States v. Baty,*the Court explained, “We think that a defendant’s waiver of her right to appeal deserves and, indeed, requires the special attention of the district court. When a defendant waives her right to appeal, she gives up the very valuable right to correct a district court’s unknown and unannounced sentence.” 980 F.2d 977, 978 (5th Cir.1992). The transcript reveals that the district court paid the requisite special attention. Defendant’s counsel, Mr. Chasnoff, stated, “There will be no appeal of the final sentence given by this Court ...” (emphasis added). The bottom line is that the record from the district court unambiguously establishes that Defendant chose to forsake all avenues of appeal of his sentence.

Dismissed.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be *630published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
September 18, 1942

No. 47584.

#### Protests 82981-K, etc., of Pearce *&*Friedman, Inc., et al.

Plaintiffs’ application for rehearing granted.
III 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 174 

Recognizing Burmese democracy activist and Nobel Peace Prize Laureate 

Aung San Suu Kyi as a symbol of the struggle for freedom in Burma. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 16, 2005 

Mr. MCCONNELL (for himself, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. MCCAIN, Mr. FRIST, Mr. 

LUGAR, and Mr. REID) submitted the following resolution; which was 

considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION

Recognizing Burmese democracy activist and Nobel Peace 

Prize Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi as a symbol of the 

struggle for freedom in Burma.

Whereas June 19, 2005 marks the 60th birthday of Burmese 

democracy activist and Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Aung 

San Suu Kyi; 

Whereas Burma is misruled by the State Peace and Development Council, an illegitimate, repressive military junta 

led by General Than Shwe; 

Whereas although the main opposition party in Burma, the 

National League for Democracy, won a landslide victory 

in national elections in 1990, the State Peace and Development Council has refused to honor the results of that 

election and peacefully transfer power in Burma; 
2

•SRES 174 ATS

Whereas the State Peace and Development Council as a matter of policy carries out a campaign of violence and intimidation against the people of Burma and ethnic minorities that includes the use of rape, torture, and terror; 

Whereas hundreds of democracy activists, including Aung 

San Suu Kyi who is the leader of the National League 

for Democracy, remain imprisoned by the repressive 

State Peace and Development Council; and 

Whereas the United States and other democratic countries 

recognize and applaud the dedication and commitment to 

freedom demonstrated by Aung San Suu Kyi and the 

people of Burma: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) recognizes Burmese democracy activist and 

3 Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi as 

4 a symbol of the spirit and dedication of the people 

5 of Burma who are courageously and nonviolently 

6 struggling for freedom, human rights, and justice; 

7 (2) calls for the immediate and unconditional 

8 release of Aung San Suu Kyi and all other prisoners 

9 of conscience who are held by the State Peace and 

10 Development Council, the illegitimate, repressive 

11 military junta in power in Burma; and 

12 (3) strongly urges Secretary of State 

13 Condoleezza Rice to initiate a discussion of the re14 pressive practices of the State Peace and Develop15 ment Council during the 12th Association of South16 east Asian Nations regional forum and post-ministe-
3

•SRES 174 ATS

1 rial meeting scheduled to take place in Vientiane, 

2 Laos on July 29, 2005.

Æ
# C_2017038EN.01002801.xml

| 6.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/28

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2016 — Abertis Telecom Terrestre and Telecom Castilla-La Mancha v Commission

(Joined Cases T-37/15 and T-38/15) (1)

1

((State aid - Digital television - Aid for the deployment of digital terrestrial television in remote and less-urbanised areas of Castilla-La Mancha - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market - Concept of an undertaking - Economic activity - Advantage - Service of general economic interest - Distortion of competition - Article 107(3)(c) TFEU - New aid))

(2017/C 038/37)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Abertis Telecom Terrestre, SA (Barcelona, Spain), Telecom Castilla-La Mancha, SA (Toledo, Spain) (represented by: initially, J. Buendía Sierra, A. Lamadrid de Pablo, A. Balcells Cartagena and M. Bolsa Ferruz, and subsequently J. Buendía Sierra, A. Lamadrid de Pablo and M. Bolsa Ferruz, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: É. Gippini Fournier, P. Němečková and B. Stromsky, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the defendant: SES Astra (Betzdorf, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. González Díaz, F. Salerno and V. Romero Algarra, lawyers)

Intervener in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking the annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 6846 final of 1 October 2014 on State aid SA.27408 ((C 24/2010) (ex NN 37/2010, ex CP 19/2009)) implemented by the authorities of Castilla-La Mancha for the deployment of digital terrestrial television in remote and less urbanised areas of Castilla-La Mancha, as amended by Decision C(2015) 7193 final of 20 October 2015 correcting certain errors contained in Decision C(2014) 6846 final.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the actions; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the actions;

| 2. | Orders Abertis Telecom Terrestre, SA and Telecom Castilla-La Mancha, SA to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission and by SES Astra. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Abertis Telecom Terrestre, SA and Telecom Castilla-La Mancha, SA to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission and by SES Astra.

---

(1)  OJ C 89, 16.3.2015.

1

---
No. 56626.

protests 155627-K, etc. (New York).

#### Doniger Export Corp. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of wooden boxes similar in all material respects to those the subject of *X-Acto Crescent Products Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(27 Cust. Ct. 190, C. D. 1368), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.