alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2012151EN.01003003.xml

| 26.5.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 151/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.5.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 151/30

---

Action brought on 22 February 2012 — Almashreq Investment v Council

(Case T-100/12)

2012/C 151/52

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Almashreq Investment Co. (Joint Stock Holding Company) (Damas, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Declare the applicant’s action admissible and well founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare the applicant’s action admissible and well founded;

| — | In consequence, annul Decision 2011/782/CFSP of 1 December 2011 and Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 of 18 January 2012 and their subsequent implementing acts, insofar as they concern the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

In consequence, annul Decision 2011/782/CFSP of 1 December 2011 and Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 of 18 January 2012 and their subsequent implementing acts, insofar as they concern the applicant;

| — | Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those relied on in Cases T-432/11 Makhlouf v Council, (1) and T-433/11 Makhlouf v Council. (2)

Makhlouf

Council

1

Makhlouf

Council

2

---

(1)  OJ 2011 C 290, p. 13.

1

(2)  OJ 2011 C 290, p. 14.

2

---
#### Craig A. LABORDE v. SCOTTSDALE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.

No. 98-C-0471.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 15, 1998.

In re Laborde, Craig A.;—Plaintiff(s); applying for reconsideration of this Court’s Action dated April 3, 1998, Parish of Avoyelles, 12th Judicial District Court, Div. “B”, No. 95-1962; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CA96-1659.

Reconsideration denied; judgment is definitive.

KNOLL, J., not on panel.
# C_2014093EN.01001502.xml

| 29.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 93/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/15

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France)) — Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects, Chef de l’agence de la direction nationale du renseignement et des enquêtes douanières v Humeau Beaupréau SAS

(Case C-2/13) (1)

1

(Common Customs Tariff - Tariff classification - Combined Nomenclature - Chapter 64 - Import of components required for the manufacture of sports footwear - Heading 6404 - Footwear with outer soles of rubber, plastics, leather or composition leather and uppers of textile materials - Heading 6406 - Parts of footwear - General Rule 2(a) for the Interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature - Incomplete or unfinished article having the ‘essential character of the complete or finished article’ - Article ‘presented unassembled or disassembled’ - Explanatory Note for the interpretation of the Harmonised System - Assembly operations and not ‘working operations for completion into the finished state’)

2014/C 93/24

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects, Chef de l’agence de la direction nationale du renseignement et des enquêtes douanières

Applicants:

Defendant: Humeau Beaupréau SAS

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Cour de cassation (France) — Interpretation of Article 2(a) to the General Rule for the Interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature and of paragraph 7 of the Explanatory Notes to the Harmonised System — Common Customs Tariff — Tariff classification — Combined Nomenclature — Footwear manufacturing process — Assembly operations or working operations for completion into the finished state.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

General Rule 2(a) for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, in the version in force at the material time, must be interpreted as meaning that an upper, an outer sole and an inner sole, as an article presented unassembled having the essential character of footwear, come under heading 6404 of the combined nomenclature where, following their import, a counter must be inserted into the upper and the outer sole and the upper must be roughed for the purpose of their assembly.

---

(1)  OJ C 71, 9.3.2013.

1

---
No. 96-403.

#### Corporation *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to file information under seal granted. Certiorari denied.
(Reap. Dec. 9464)

#### Addicalco Corporation of America *v.*United States

Entry Nos. 718530; 910597.

(Decided June 16, 1959)

Plaintiff not represented by counsel.

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

Lawrence, Judge:

When the above-enumerated appeals for a reappraisement were called for hearing, there was no appearance on behalf of plaintiff and the cases were ordered submitted by the court.

Rule 5 (a) of the rules of the court provides that — ■

> The submission for decision of any case shall be made in open court by the parties thereto or their attorneys, or by stipulation, or by written reguest to the court, or by the court on its own motion. Where the plaintiff, petitioner, or appellant, or his attorney, in a case does not appear when the same is called, and after the opposite party has had opportunity to present evidence on the issues, it may be deemed submitted and may be decided by the court on the record' as it appears therein.

Accordingly, I have examined the record in the appeals before the court and find nothing therein which tends in any way to overcome the presumption of correctness which attaches to the decision of the appraiser. I find and hold, therefore, that the proper values of the merchandise are the values returned by the appraiser.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
Exhibit 32



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18,
United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Paradigm Genetics, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:



The Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003 (the
Form 10-K) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                      |  |                                      
|--------------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|Dated: March 30, 2004 |  | /s/    Heinrich Gugger               
|                      |  | President and Chief Executive Officer



|                      |  |                                                                                                            
|--------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: March 30, 2004 |  | /s/    Philip R. Alfano                                                                                    
|                      |  | Vice President, Finance, Chief Financial Officer and
Treasurer (Principal financial and accounting officer)



A signed original of
this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Alvin Thomas *versus*Albert B. Mayo.

Chapter 152 of the Public Laws of 1868, providing that waivers of demand and notice, by an indorser of notes and bills, shall be in writing and signed, in order to be valid, is prospective in its operation.

ON Report.

Kent, J.

— The defendant promised to pay the note on which he was indorser, in a short time, if the plaintiff *41would wait upon him. Plaintiff did wait several years before instituting this suit. At the time of the promise, in 1863, the defendant knew that no notice of a demand and refusal had been given, and that, therefore, he was not legally bound to pay.

AC *H.*Hubbard, for the plaintiff.

*C. If.*Pierce, for the defendant.

"A promise to pay, with full knowledge of all the facts, would bind the indorsers, although there had been no legal demand or notice.” *McPhetres*v. *Halley,*32 Maine, 77; *Byram*v. *Hunter,*36 Maine, 217; Story on Bills, § 274.

That this is the doctrine of the common law does not seem to be disputed by the counsel for the defendant. But he invokes the recent statute of the State Laws of 1868, c. 152, which enacts that "hereafter, no waiver of demand and notice within this State, by an indorser of any promissory note, or bill of exchange, shall be valid, unless the same shall be in writing, signed by such indorser or lawful agent.”

It is unnecessary to consider the question, whether the above provision applies to a case of a subsequent promise to pay after knowledge of a legal release. The statute, in express terms is made prospective and cannot affect the rights of parties under antecedent agreements, amounting to a legal promise to pay. *Defendant defaulted.*

Appleton, C. J., Walton, Barrows and Dáñeoste, JJ., concurred.
# C_2012355EN.01002702.xml

| 17.11.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 355/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.11.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 355/27

---

Action brought on 25 September 2012 — CW v Council

(Case T-162/12)

2012/C 355/58

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: CW (Paris, France) (represented by: A. Tekari, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | declare the application admissible and well founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the application admissible and well founded;

| — | consequently, declare Decision 2012/50/CFSP null and void in all its effects, in so far as it relates to the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

consequently, declare Decision 2012/50/CFSP null and void in all its effects, in so far as it relates to the applicant;

| — | order the Council to pay the costs, as well as EUR 2 500 000 in respect of non-recoverable expenses. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council to pay the costs, as well as EUR 2 500 000 in respect of non-recoverable expenses.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law, alleging (i) an infringement of the rules of procedure and the rights of the defence; (ii) a lack of legal basis; (iii) an infringement of Article 1 of Decision 2011/72/CFSP (1) and an insufficient statement of reasons; (iv) an error of assessment; and (v) a disproportionate infringement of the right to property and of entrepreneurial freedom.

1

---

(1)  Council Decision 2011/72/CFSP of 31 January 2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia (OJ 2011 L 28, p. 62).

1

---
(Reap. Dec. 9672)

#### Plywood & Door Manufacturers Corporation et al. *v.*United States

Entry No. 16460, etc.

(Decided April 19, 1960)

*James Wilson Young*for the plaintiffs.

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

*661Mollison, Judge:

Counsel for the parties have submitted the appeals for reappraisement enumerated in schedule “A,” attached to my decision herein, for decision upon stipulation on the basis of which I find export value, as defined in section 402(d), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the plywood involved, and that such value in each instance, except as to the merchandise specified in schedule “B,” also hereto attached, is the invoice unit values, less ocean freight and insurance, with no allowance for any discounts appearing on the invoices.

The appeals for reappraisement having been abandoned as to the merchandise specified in schedule “B,” they are, to that extent, dismissed.

Judgment will issue accordingly.

SCHEDULE B

Reappraisement No. Collectors No. Entry No Date of export

R/59/4735 4929 16460 2/22/57

Shipper: Enso-Gutzeit, birch plywood as follows:

B J/BB Grade, %'' thick, 60'' x 60"

BJ/BB “ “ “ 60'' x 48''

BJ/WG “ -lie" “ 60'' x 60"

BJ/WG “ “ “ 48'' x60''

R59/5250 4943 8744 10/17/57

Shipper: Kaukas OX., birch plywood as follows:

A/BJ grade, thick 62" x 62''

61" x 61"

60" x 60"
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 95 (Thursday, May 17, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 27806]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-9459]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP00-305-031]


CenterPoint Energy--Mississippi River Transmission Corporation; 
Notice of Negotiated Rate

May 10, 2007.
    Take notice that on April 27, 2007, CenterPoint Energy--Mississippi 
River Transmission Corporation (MRT) tendered for filing a negotiated 
rate agreement for Rate Schedule ITS service from ConocoPhillips 
Company to WRB Refining, LLC., effective May 1, 2007.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of 
Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). 
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that 
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on 
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to 
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c2848790818dacaeabaca791b7b2b2adb0b682a4a7b0a1eca5adb4"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="db9d9e899894b5b7b2b5be88aeababb4a9af9bbdbea9b8f5bcb4ad">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-9459 Filed 5-16-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 86 (Friday, May 4, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 25318]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-8561]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention


National Center for Environmental Health/Agency for Toxic 
Substances and Disease Registry

    The Health Department Subcommittee of the Board of Scientific 
Counselors (BSC), CDC, National Center for Environmental Health (NCEH)/
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR): 
Teleconference Meeting.
    In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention, NCEH/ATSDR announces the following subcommittee 
teleconference meeting:
    Times and Dates: 12:30 p.m.-2 p.m., June 4, 2007.
    Place: Century Center, 1825 Century Boulevard, Atlanta, Georgia 
30345.
    Status: Open to the public. Teleconference access limited only by 
availability of telephone ports.
    Purpose: Under the charge of the Board of Scientific Counselors, 
NCEH/ATSDR, the HDS Subcommittee will provide the BSC, NCEH/ATSDR with 
advice and recommendations on local and state health department issues 
and concerns that pertain to the mandates and mission of NCEH/ATSDR.
    Matters To Be Discussed: The meeting will include a review of the 
agenda; approval of minutes from the last conference call; a discussion 
of recommendations, work plan and comments from the BSC; public comment 
and the next steps for the HDS.
    Items are subject to change as priorities dictate.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This teleconference meeting is scheduled to 
begin at 12:30 p.m. Eastern Daylight Savings Time. To participate, 
please dial 877/315-6535 and enter conference code 383520. The public 
comment period is scheduled from 1:20-1:30 p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shirley D. Little, Committee 
Management Specialist, NCEH/ATSDR, 1600 Clifton Road, Mail Stop E-28, 
Atlanta, GA 30303; telephone 404/498-0615, fax 404/498-0059; E-mail: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c6b5aaafb2b2aaa386a5a2a5e8a1a9b0"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="16657a7f62627a735675727538717960">[email protected]</span></a>.
    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office has been 
delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to 
announcements of meetings and other committee management activities for 
both CDC and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

    Dated: April 27, 2007.
Elaine L. Baker,
Acting Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for 
Disease Control and Prevention.
[FR Doc. E7-8561 Filed 5-3-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-18-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
# C_2012343EN.01000602.xml

| 10.11.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 343/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.11.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 343/6

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany), lodged on 15 August 2012 — Hi Hotel HCF SARL v Uwe Spoering

(Case C-387/12)

2012/C 343/06

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant on a point of law: Hi Hotel HCF SARL

Appellant on a point of law:

Respondent on a point of law: Uwe Spoering

Respondent on a point of law:

Question referred

Question referred

Is Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the harmful event occurred in one Member State (Member State A) in the case where the tort or delict which forms the subject-matter of the proceedings or from which claims are derived was committed in another Member State (Member State B) and consists in participation in the tort or delict (principal act) committed in the first Member State (Member State A)?

1

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1).

1

---
PUBLIC LAW 111–111—NOV. 30, 2009 123 STAT. 3023 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—S. 1314 (H.R. 2971): 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 155 (2009): 

Aug. 4, considered and passed Senate. 

Nov. 16, considered and passed House. 

Æ 

Public Law 111–111 

111th Congress 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 630 Northeast 

Killingsworth Avenue in Portland, Oregon, as the ‘‘Dr. Martin Luther King, 

Jr. Post Office’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. POST OFFICE. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 630 Northeast Killingsworth Avenue in Portland, 

Oregon, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Dr. Martin Luther 

King, Jr. Post Office’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Post Office’’. 

Approved November 30, 2009. 

Nov. 30, 2009 

[S. 1314] 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1 with PUBLIC LAWS
No. 46406.

#### Protests 785081-G, etc., of John A. Alban *&*Co. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Walker, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
No. 96-7060.

#### Despain *v.*Nevada.

Sup. Ct. Nev. Certiorari denied.
No. 65810.

#### John L. Westland & Son, Inc., a/c Fedco, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 59/3529, etc. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise*and issues herein are similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Schmidt Pritchard & Co. et al.*(47 C.C.P.A. 152, C.A.D. 750), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.