alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2016296EN.01000402.xml

| 16.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 296/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 296/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 June 2016 — Productos Asfálticos (PROAS) SA v European Commission

(Case C-616/13 P) (1)

1

((Appeal - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Article 81 EC - Spanish market for penetration bitumen - Market sharing and price coordination - Excessive duration of the proceedings before the General Court of the European Union - Excessive duration of the procedure before the European Commission - Appeal on the costs))

(2016/C 296/06)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Productos Asfálticos (PROAS) SA (represented by: C. Fernández Vicién, abogada)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: C. Urraca Caviedes and F. Castillo de la Torre, acting as Agents, and by A.J. Rivas, avocat)

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 Productos Asfálticos (PROAS) SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Productos Asfálticos (PROAS) SA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 24, 25.1.2014.

1

---
# C_2014315EN.01001901.xml

| 15.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 315/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 315/19

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 July 2014 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Criminal proceedings against Markus D. (C 358/13) and G. (C-181/14)

(Joined Cases C-358/13 and C 181/14) (1)

1

(((Medicinal products for human use - Directive 2001/83/EC - Scope - Interpretation of the concept of ‘medicinal product’ - Scope of the criterion based on the capacity to modify physiological functions - Herb and cannabinoid-based products - Not included))

2014/C 315/27

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Criminal proceedings against

Criminal proceedings against

Markus D. (C-358/13) and G. (C-181/14)

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(2)(b) of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, as amended by Directive 2004/27/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004, must be interpreted as not covering substances, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which produce effects that merely modify physiological functions but which are not such as to have any beneficial effects, either immediately or in the long term, on human health, are consumed solely to induce a state of intoxication and are, as such, harmful to human health.

---

(1)  OJ C 325, 9.11.2013.

1

OJ C 212, 7.7.2014.

---
EXHIBIT 13.1



CERTIFICATION



Pursuant to 18 U. S. C. Section 1350, the undersigned officer of Global-Tech Appliances Inc., a British Virgin Islands corporation (the
Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that the Companys Annual Report on the Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2003 (the Form 20-F) fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of, and for, the
periods presented in the Form 20-F.



|Dated: |  | September 26, 2003 |  |  |  | /s/ John C.K. Sham                   
|------ |  | ------------------ |  |  |  | -------------------------------------
|       |  |                    |  |  |  | John C.K. Sham                       
|       |  |                    |  |  |  | President and Chief Executive Officer



The foregoing
Certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U. S. C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Form 20-F or as a separate disclosure document.
exv10w1



 






Exhibit 10.1




FIRST AMENDMENT TO AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT



This First Amendment to Amended and Restated Employment Agreement by and between CLARCOR Inc., a
Delaware corporation (the “Corporation”), and Norman Johnson (the “Executive”) is
dated as of January 19, 2008.



WHEREAS, the parties are parties to that certain Amended and Restated Employment Agreement dated
December 17, 2000 (the “Employment Agreement”);



WHEREAS, the parties wish to amend certain provisions of the Employment Agreement, as further
specified herein;



WHEREAS, all capitalized terms used herein have the meanings ascribed to them in the Employment
Agreement unless otherwise defined;



NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of past grants of stock options and restricted stock units
previously issued to the Executive and for other good and valuable consideration the sufficiency of
which is hereby acknowledged by each of the parties, the parties hereby agree as follows:





	 	1.	 	Amendments.






	 	(a)	 	Section 1(a) of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended to delete
therefrom the words “in Rockford, Illinois”.
	 
	 	(b)	 	Section 3(f) of the Employment Agreement (which provided the Executive
with the potential right to receive a special one-time bonus and option grant in
the event the Corporation achieved certain sales or profitability targets in a
given quarter) is hereby deleted from the Agreement in its entirety and of no
further effect. The Executive hereby forever and irrevocably waives any right that
he has or had to receive the benefits contemplated under this Section of the
Employment Agreement.






	 	2.	 	No Further Amendment. Except as set forth in the preceding paragraphs, the
parties do not otherwise modify the Employment Agreement and all other provisions thereof
remain unchanged and in full force and effect as originally executed.




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Executive has hereunto set his hand and, pursuant to the authorization from its
Board of Directors, the Corporation has caused these presents to be executed in its name on its
behalf, all as of the day and year first above written.




	 	 	 	 	 
	Executive



	 	CLARCOR Inc.

	 
	/s/ Norman Johnson

	 	By: 	/s/ Robert Jenkins	 
	 

	 	 	 	 
	Norman Johnson

	 	 	 Robert Jenkins

Compensation Committee Chairman
Before the Second Division,

June 7, 1951

No. 55626.

#### F. W. Myers & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 157599-K (Ogdensburg).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

It was stipulated between counsel that certain items of the merchandise consist of aluminum smelter scrap in ingot form similar in all material respects to so-called starter metal, which metal is produced from bauxite in electric reduction pots, but contains certain impurities due to the fact that it was made with new electrolyte; that this electrolyte consists of fluorspar and cryolite and contains certain metallic oxides which are imparted in the form of metals to the first batches of aluminum with which it comes in contact; that there is no commercial way to separate these undesirable metals from the aluminum and the manufacturer is unable to predict or control the kind or percentages of such impurities; that since a uniform analysis cannot be guaranteed, starter metal does not meet the general trade requirements for aluminum and it is invariably used for blending with higher purity aluminum to produce a product meeting commercial specifications; and that the merchandise is not commercially fit for use otherwise than for remelting and blending with other aluminum-bearing materials. Upon the agreed statement of facts, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 6131.

#### STATE EX REL. LAND DEVELOPMENT CO., OF LA., LTD. vs. REGISTER OF CONVEYANCES.

Syllabus.

In order to redeem property sold for taxes it .is not enough for the owner to tender the amount due to the purchaser, he must also deposit it with the Tax Collector.

Appeal from the Civil District Court for the Parish of. Orleans, Division <£D,” No. 106,714. Hon. Porter Parker, Judge.

Theo. Cotonio, for plaintiff and appellee.

Oscar Schreiber, for defendant and appellant.

His Honor, CHARLES F. CLAIBORNE,

rendered the opinion and decree of the Court, as follows:

The petition recites that the City of New Orleans sold certain property for taxes of 1911, to Paul Sianuee and executed a deed to him which was registered in the Conveyance Office; that the plaintiff offered to redeem said property from Saunee who refused to accept the tender,that petitioner is the registered owner of said property and is entitled to have the inscription of said sale can-celled.

Saunee denied the allegations, of the petition except the tax sale to him, but averred that by an act under private signature executed prior to the tender he had transferred all his rights in said property to Mrs. Rosa Richard, wife of Louis Ford, who claimed to be owner of the property. This private act, however, had not been registered up to the filing of this suit.

Judgment was rendered January 19, as prayed for ordering the cancellation of the inscription.

*310Opinion and decree, June 1st, 1914.

Rehearing refused, June 30, 1914.

Thereafter a rule was taken to tax costs ¡against Saunee. The rule was made absolute on February 25.

Saunee took a devolutive appeal from both judgments, the one on the merits, and the one on the rule for costs.

Plaintiff was not entitled to an unconditional judgment upon the mere tender to Saunee. Upon the latter’s refusal he should have deposited the amount due the purchaser at tax sale “with the Collector,” Sec. 65 of Act 170 of 1898, p. 377.

31 A., 330; 33 La., 432; 113 La., 93; 121 La,, 63.

It is therefore ordered that the judgment herein rendered on January 19, be amended by providing that said judgment shall become executory only after the plaintiff shall have deposited the amount due the tax pui~chaser with the Tax Collector, and that as thus amended it be affirmed.

It is further ordered that the judgment rendered February 25, be affirmed.

It is further ordered that the defendant pay the costs of the District Court, and that the plaintiff pay the costs of this Court.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 89 (Wednesday, May 7, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 25592]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-10061]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

48 CFR Part 3002


Homeland Security Acquisition Regulation (HSAR); Definitions of 
Words and Terms

CFR Correction

    In title 48 of the Code of Federal Regulations, chapter 29 to end, 
revised as of October 1, 2007, on page 66, in 3002.101, remove the 
definition of ``Organizational Element (OE)''.
[FR Doc. E8-10061 Filed 5-6-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

**COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,**

**Respondent**

**v.**

**KENNETH F. SODOMSKY,**

**Petitioner :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 319 MAL 2016** 

**Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 5th day of October, 2016, the Petition for All owance of Appeal is** 

DENIED

**.**

**Justice Mundy did not participate in the consideration o r decision of this matter.**
No. 74-980.

#### Lee et al. *v.*Arrowood et al.

Sup. Ct. Minn. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Blackmun took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION 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)



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) (the Act),
I, Mark M. Jacobs, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Orion Power Holdings, Inc. (the Company), hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge:



| | (a) | the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2004 (the Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                     |  |                                                     
|-------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------
|Date: August 5, 2004 |  | /s/ Mark M. Jacobs                                  
|                     |  | Mark M. Jacobs                                      
|                     |  | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Case No. 10,080.

#### Ex parte NEEDHAM et al.

[1 Pet. C. C. 487.] 1

Circuit Court, D. Pennsylvania.

Oct. Term, 1817.

International Law — Expedition against Power at Peace with United States — Arrest op Participants — Act op 1794.

1. It is an offence against the act of congress, passed 1794 [1 Stat. 381], to concert an expedition from the United States to commit hostilities-against a power at peace with the United States; and it is unimportant that such association originated beyond seas, if the expedition was carried' on from hence.

2. It is unimportant, whether the persons engaged in such a purpose engage the whole vessel to themselves, or departed from the United' States as passengers.

Habeas corpus. The case appeared shortly to be as follows: The petitioners, ten in, number, being foreigners, enlisted or otherwise engaged in Holland to join the revolutionists in South America, and accordingly embarked for the United States with their military equipments, intending to obtain a passage from this country to South America. They arrived here under the command of Needham, who claimed or had in reality the title of colonel, and who exercised in Philadelphia, during the short stay they made here, the authority of commander, ordering them to appear at a certain place of rendezvous where they were drilled and exercised. A passage was taken for them on board the-Ellen for the island of St. Thomas, and their baggage was put on board. The Ellen fell down to Gloucester Point to take in the balance of her cargo, consisting of arms and' munitions of war, and destined from St. Thomas to some port in the Spanish American provinces, but before she left Gloucester-Point she was stopped by admiralty process, and the prisoners were arrested and committed.

1

 [Reported by Bichard Peters, Jr., Esq.]

THE COUKT

was of opinion, that upon the ground of an expedition carried on from. *1275the United States, with intent to commit hostilities against a power at peace with the United States, enough appeared to the court to justify the remanding of the prisoners. That it is unimportant, whether the association to join the revolutionists originated in the United States or beyond seas. The expedition or enterprise was still carried on from the United States, and it was immaterial whether a company of armed men, proceeding from this with such intentions, took the whole vessel to themselves, or merely departed hence as passengers. If a regiment of foreign soldiers, armed and equipped, should land in the United States and hire a vessel to transport them to South America, with intent to make war upon the Spanish king or his subjects, could it be contended, that this was not an expedition fitted out from the United States, within the clear expressions and meaning of the third section of the act of 1794? If such a case would come within the provisions of that law, it would seem.difficult to distinguish it from the present. Prisoners remanded.
#### Letarius MATHIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 98-2390.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Oct. 2, 1998.

*349Letarius Mathis, Clermont, for Appellant.

No Appearance for Appellee.

GRIFFIN, Chief Judge.

Letarius Mathis timely appeals the order summarily denying his Rule 3.800(a) motion to correct sentence.

When Mathis was resentenced on April 24, 1996, upon violation of his probation, the lower court added twenty-five additional points for carrying a concealed firearm and made an additional assessment of eighteen points for that same offense, for a total of forty-three points. Mathis urges that the trial court must delete the forty-three points from his seoresheet and resentenee him accordingly, relying on the recent opinion of the supreme court of Florida in *White v. State,*714 So.2d 440 (Fla.1998).

The lower court in its order denied relief, holding that under *Roberts v. State,*644 So.2d 81 (Fla.1994), it was entitled to revise a seoresheet to include a prior conviction that was mistakenly omitted from the original seoresheet. This is a correct statement of the law. Moreover, because any error in adding that conviction to his prior record at resentencing is not apparent from the face of the seoresheet, Mathis’s claim is not cognizable under Rule 3.800(a).

The lower court’s order does not go on to address Mathis’s claim under *White,*which concerns the assessment of eighteen points as an enhancement under Rule 3.702(d)(12). Nonetheless, Mathis is not entitled to relief. He was resentenced on April 24, 1996, but *White*was not released until June 12, 1998, over two years later. Nothing in the *White*opinion indicates that it is to be given retrospective effect in a postconviction proceeding. At the time Mathis was resen-tenced in 1996, the law in this district was that additional sentencing points are proper when a defendant is convicted of carrying a concealed weapon or possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, even though carrying or possession of a firearm is an essential element of the underlying crime. *See Gardner v. State,*661 So.2d 1274 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995).

AFFIRMED.

GOSHORN and HARRIS, JJ., concur.
#### Belinda HEBERT, et al. v. BROWN BOTTLING GROUP, INC., et al.

No. 98-C-0924.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 15, 1998.

In re Alliance General Insurance Co.; Shop-Rite, Inc.;-Defendant(s); applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; Parish of Acadia, 15th Judicial District Court, Div. “I”, No. 66,450; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CA97-0760.

Granted.

JOHNSON, J., not on panel.
# C_2015311EN.01000301.xml

| 21.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 311/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 311/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Directeur général des finances publiques v Mapfre asistencia compania internacional de seguros y reaseguros SA and Mapfre warranty SpA v Directeur général des finances publiques

(Case C-584/13) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Turnover tax - Scope - Exemption - Notion of ‘insurance transactions’ - Notion of ‘supply of services’ - Lump sum for a warranty covering breakdowns of a second-hand vehicle))

(2015/C 311/03)

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 finances publiques, Mapfre warranty SpA

Applicants:

Defendants: Mapfre asistencia compania internacional de seguros y reaseguros SA, Directeur général des finances publiques

Defendants:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 13(B)(a) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 91/680/EEC of 16 December 1991, must be interpreted as meaning that the supply of services whereby an economic operator which is independent of a second-hand motor-vehicle dealer provides, in return for payment of a lump sum, a warranty covering mechanical breakdowns which may affect certain parts of that vehicle constitutes an exempt insurance transaction within the meaning of that provision. It is for the referring court to determine whether, in the light of circumstances such as those of the cases in the main proceedings, the supply of services at issue in the main proceedings is such a supply. The provision of such a supply and the sale of the second-hand vehicle must, in principle, be considered to be distinct and independent supplies, to be treated separately from the point of view of VAT. It is for the referring court to determine whether, having regard to the specific circumstances of the cases in the main proceedings, the sale of a second-hand vehicle and the warranty provided by an independent economic operator to the dealer selling that second-hand vehicle covering mechanical breakdowns which may affect certain parts of that vehicle are so interconnected that they must be regarded as constituting a single transaction or whether, on the contrary, they are independent transactions.

---

(1)  OJ C 31, 1.2.2014.

1

---
October 23, 2015

Eddie Weeks

818 Maxine Dr ive

Baton Rouge, LA 70808

Dear Mr. Eddie Weeks :

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your petition for an exemption from

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not process your

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can No t Process Your Request

We received your June 22 , 2015 exemption request filed in D ocket No. FAA

- 20 15

- 3340 , but

we are unable to process your request any further. Your petition does no t comply with the

requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must

send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the

relief you seek , and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would

benefit the public as a whole.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

For more deta iled information relating to submitting petitions for exemption, please visit

http://aes.faa.gov/petition/index.html

. This website helps the petitioner to meet Federal

Aviation A dministration (FAA) requirement outlines in § 11.81 and helps answer any

ques tions you may have.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must submit the requested information

within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption at

least 120 days before th e proposed effective date of the exemption.2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further. If

you have any questions you may call the 333 Information Line (202) 267

- 2999.

Sinc erely,

/s/

B rittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure s34