alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2012184EN.01002203.xml

| 23.6.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 184/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.6.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 184/22

---

Action brought on 24 February 2012 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-27/12)

2012/C 184/48

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: R. Ferlin, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision not to include the applicant in competition EPSO/COM/AD/02/10–AD7.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul Decision No R/718/11 of the European Commission of 21 November 2011; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Decision No R/718/11 of the European Commission of 21 November 2011;

| — | In the alternative, annul the competition in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

In the alternative, annul the competition in its entirety;

| — | Order the Commission to pay the sum of EUR 50 000 by way of compensation for the non-material damage caused to the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay the sum of EUR 50 000 by way of compensation for the non-material damage caused to the applicant;

| — | Order the defendant to pay all the costs of the proceedings and all legal costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay all the costs of the proceedings and all legal costs.

---
A98A2344.

#### ROSE et al. v. BARBEE et al.

(511 SE2d 268)

Barnes, Judge.

Joseph M. Buckles purchased a lot near Lake Hartwell, subject to the following covenant: “No concrete block houses or mobile homes of any description shall be placed on said property.” Martha and Lee Rose signed a sales contract with Buckles, started clearing the land, and placed a double-wide home on the property before closing on the contract. Approximately 12 days after the dwelling was placed on the property, adjacent landowners sued Buckles and the Roses, seeking an injunction prohibiting the Roses from improving the dwelling and an order compelling them to remove it. The landowners alleged that the dwelling was a mobile home that violated the restrictive covenant. The Roses answered, denying that the dwelling violated the covenant. After a hearing, the trial court concluded that the dwelling was a “mobile home” as defined in the restrictive covenant, ordered the Roses to remove the dwelling, and permanently enjoined them from bringing on to the property “a structure defined as a mobile home.” The Roses appeal the trial court’s ruling. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

1. The Roses first argue that the trial court erred in holding that the residence was a mobile home. A trial court’s determination that a dwelling is a mobile home “involve [s] both questions of law and fact and can only be overturned in the event of manifest abuse of discretion.” *White v. Legodais,*249 Ga. 849, 850 (295 SE2d 99) (1982).

We find no abuse of discretion here. While the Roses assert that their modular home was “mobile” only in the sense that it was delivered to the site, a receipt for the structure describes it as a mobile home. An order for electrical service notes that a “new mobile home will be set up in future at this location.” And the Roses admit in their brief that they purchased “what is now commonly referred to as a double-wide mobile home.” This evidence authorized the trial court to find that the Roses’ dwelling fell within the definition of prohibited structures contained in the covenant. See *Garland v. Carnes, 259*Ga. 263 (379 SE2d 782) (1989); *White,*249 Ga. at 850-851.

2. The Roses failed to support by citation of authority or argument their assertion that the restrictive covenant is unconstitutionally vague. We therefore deem this enumeration abandoned pursuant to Court of Appeals Rule 27 (c) (2). See *Jett v. State of Ga.,*230 Ga. App. 655, 656 (498 SE2d 274) (1998).

3. Finally, the Roses failed to object to the developer’s testimony regarding the restrictive covenant at issue. Objections not raised at trial cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. See *Jones v. State,*232 Ga. App. 505 (502 SE2d 345) (1998).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Johnson, C. J., and Smith, J., concur.*

*177Decided February 1, 1999.

*Andrew J. Hill, Jr.,*for appellants.

*Walter J. Gordon, Kimberly A. Wilkerson,*for appellees.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 147 (Thursday, July 31, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 41119]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-20085]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice No. 2572]


Shipping Coordinating Committee Subcommittee on Safety of Life at 
Sea Working Group on Fire Protection; Notice of Meeting

    The U.S. Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) Working Group on Fire 
Protection will conduct an open meeting on Wednesday, August 20, 1997, 
at 9:30 AM, in Room 6103 at U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, 2100 2nd 
Street, SW, Washington, DC 20593. The purpose of the meeting will be to 
prepare for discussions anticipated to take place at the Forty-second 
Session of the International Maritime Organization's Subcommittee on 
Fire Protection, to be held December 8-12, 1997.
    The meeting will focus on proposed amendments to the 1974 SOLAS 
Convention for the fire safety of commercial vessels. Specific 
discussion areas include: Ro-ro ferry safety, fire test procedures, 
proposed restructuring of Chapter II-2, fire extinguishing systems, 
emergency escape breathing devices, criteria for maximum fire loads, 
interpretations to SOLAS 74, the High Speed Craft Code, role of the 
human element, and shipboard safety emergency plans.
    Members of the public wishing to make a statement on new issues or 
proposals at the meeting are requested to submit a brief summary to the 
U.S. Coast Guard five days prior to the meeting.
    Members of the public may attend this meeting up to the seating 
capacity of the room. For further information regarding the meeting of 
the SOLAS Working Group on Fire Protection contact Mr. Jack Booth at 
(202) 267-2997.

    Dated: July 21, 1997.
Russell A. La Mantia,
Chairman, Shipping Coordinating Committee.
[FR Doc. 97-20085 Filed 7-30-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-07-M
#### CANTELO v. BINNS.

April 8, 1837.

*Rule to show came why plaintiff should not give security for costs.*

Security for costs will not be required of a plaintiff on the mere ground of his non-residence in this state, where the application is made after the cause has been arbitrated by the plaintiff, and the defendant having appeared before the arbitrators, has appealed, and the cause is at issue and on the trial list.

THIS was an action brought to June term, 1832. The plaintifi had always resided in the state of New York. The cause was at issue and on the trial list, and the defendant had appealed from an award of arbitrators, before whom he had appeared. The defendant, on filing an affidavit as to the non-residence, obtained this rule to show cause.

On the hearing of the rule,

*Randall,*for defendant,

relied on the 26th rule of the court, (1 *Miles*450,) and on the practice which he said had existed in the courts of this state under similar rules. He cited *Tidd's Practice: 2 Dali.*179; 4 *Wash,*('. *C. Rep,*385.

*Meredith,*contra.

Pee Curiam.

This application comes too late. The defendant has taken part in the proceedings by joining in the issue, and has appeared before arbitrators, from whose award he has appealed. A party will not be permitted, after these proceedings and the lapse of time exhibited here, to demand security for costs of the plaintiff, on the mere ground of non-residence.

Rule discharged.
DUGOUT GULCH
BOTANICAL TRAIL

Elevation: 4,000 to 4,600 feet
Length: 8 miles
Difficulty: Moderate

Location: Trailhead is approximately
5 miles south of Beulah,
Wyoming, off of Highway
863.

This trail is maintained for hikers,
horseback riders, and mountain bikers.
No motorized use is allowed.

The trail meanders through stands of
paper birch, ironwood, and hazelnut
trees. Sheltered under the branches of
these trees you can find several plant
species including rattlesnake fern,
common Solomon’s seal, Canadian
Enchanters’s nightshade, and the oval-
leaved milkweed. Several sedges
including meadow sedge, fox-tail sedge
and rosy sedge can also be found in the

area.
ES

5 miles
to Beulah

LEGEND

(9) Botanical Area
Private Land

erp Trail
ors Road
“— Creek

f Trailhead



General Information

77, Maintained trails are marked with
© corey diamond trail blazers on trees
“or carsonite posts. Trail junctions
are marked with brown signs with

white lettering.

pM Extreme Weather

# Clear sunny days can quickly turn
into afternoon thunderstorms. Start
hikes early and carry raingear.

VA Stream Water

“Do not drink it! Each trail user
should carry at least one quart of
water.

ESM Fire Safety
= Be extra careful with fire. Protect
this beautiful botanical area.

TRAIL COURTESY

EA Bicyclists
= Please alert
others of your
presence when
approaching from
behind.

Trail Ethics
Please don’t cut across switchbacks
or pioneer new trails.

Enjoy the National Forest, but please
TREAD LIGHTLY and DON’T LITTER.

For more information please contact:

Bearlodge Ranger District
Highway 14 East

PO Box 680

Sundance, WY 82729
307-283-1361

Supervisor’s Office
1019 N. 5th St.
Custer, SD 57730
(605) 673-9200

TTY (605) 673-9227

<7
NATIONAL FOREST|

Z

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits
discrimination in its programs on the basis of race, color, national
origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual
orientation, and marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases
apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require
alternative means for communication of program information (Braille,
large print, audiotape, etc.) Should contact USDA's TARGET Center at
(202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of program discrimination, write USDA Director,
Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and
Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call
(202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity
provider and employer.

DUGOUT GULCH
BOTANICAL TRAIL

Trail Number 77

Bearlodge Ranger District

Black Hills
National Forwt
Exhibit 32.2


          CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADDED BY
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


      In connection with the Annual Report of East Penn Financial Corporation
(the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2005, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Theresa M. Wasko,
Treasurer and Chief Financial 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:

      o     The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) and
            15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and

      o     To my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly
            presents, in all material respects, the Company's financial
            condition and results of operations of the Company as of the dates
            and for the periods presented in the Report.


  /s/ Theresa M. Wasko
-------------------------------------------------------
Theresa M. Wasko, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer

Dated:   March 27, 2006
Exhibit 32.2
                            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 China  Natural  Gas,  Inc.  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the quarter  ending  September  30, 2006 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
each of the  undersigned,  in the capacities  and on the date  indicated  below,
hereby  certifies,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

(1)  The report fully complies with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
     of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


Dated: November 14, 2006                    By:
                                               ---------------------------------
                                               Xiaogang Zhu
                                               Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 32.1

                             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), I, Patrick
D. O'Brien, Chief Executive Officer of American Oil & Gas, Inc. (the "Company"),
hereby certify, to my knowledge, that:

     1) the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A1 for the quarterly
period ending March 31, 2003 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


Dated: November 19, 2003

/s/ Patrick D. O'Brien
----------------------
Patrick O'Brien
Chief Executive Officer

                                       20
Case No. 9,390.

#### MEDFORD v. DORSEY.

[2 Wash. C. C. 467.]1

Circuit Court, D. Pennsylvania.

April Term, 1810.

Judgment — Motion to Enter Satisfaction— Evidence.

Judgment on an award that the defendant pay so much on receiving from the plaintiff an indemnity against certain claims. The plaintiff afterwards refused to give the indemnity; and on the defendant paying more claims, against which he was to be indemnified, than the amount of the judgment, the court ordered satisfaction to be entered on the judgment.

[The case was originally brought in this court by Holt & Co., assignees of McCall Medford, against John Dorsey, when the jury found for the plaintiff. Case No. 6,647.]

1

 [Originally published from HieMSS. of Hon. Bushrod Washington. Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, under the supervision of Richard Peters. Jr.. Esq.]

The defendant, since the decision [Case No. 9,3S9], having paid to • one of the persons who had sued him, and against whom the plaintiff, by the report of the referees, was to indemnify him so much of the sum awarded, as with the sum before paid to Holt, and a small sum now paid into court, amounts to eighteen hundred and fifty dollars; moved the court to enter satisfaction of the decree, which the court directed.
#### Uneeda Home Appliances, Inc., Respondent, *v.*Long Island Rail Road Company, Appellant, et al., Defendant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department,

March 9, 1966.

*George M. Onken*and *Donald E. Lampson*for appellant. *Leon Brickman*for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

Plaintiff may not recover for damages to its goods in the absence of a showing that they were delivered to defendant carrier in a good condition *(Orunstein*v. *New York Cent. R. R. Co.,*179 App. Div. 465). This burden is not met by a recital in the bill of lading that the goods were received in apparent good order *(Miller*v. *Hannibal & St. Joseph R. R. Co.,*90 N. Y. 430; *Jean, Garrison & Co.*v. *Flagg,*45 Misc. 421). In the interests of justice plaintiff should be afforded an opportunity to develop its proof on this aspect of the case.

The judgment should be unanimously reversed and a new trial ordered, with $30 costs to defendant to abide the event.

Brown, McDonald and Schwartzwald, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed, etc.
Exhibit
23




CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC
ACCOUNTING FIRM




The Board of
DirectorsInvestors Title CompanyChapel Hill, North Carolina




We consent to the
incorporation by reference in the registration statement No. 333-33903 on Form
S-8 of Investors Title Company (the “Company”) of our reports dated March 5,
2010, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Investors Title
Company, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting,
which reports appear in Investors Title Company’s 2009 Annual Report on Form
10-K.




Our audits of the
consolidated financial statements referred to in our aforementioned report also
included the financial statement schedules of the Company, listed in Item 15.
These financial statement schedules are the responsibility of the Company’s
management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion based on our audits. In
our opinion, such financial statement schedules, when considered in relation to
the basic consolidated financial statements taken as a whole, present fairly in
all material respects, the information set forth herein.




High Point, North
CarolinaMarch 5, 2010




72




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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THERMEDICS
INC.'S ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 28, 1996 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-28-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-28-1996
<CASH>                                          82,673
<SECURITIES>                                    65,054
<RECEIVABLES>                                   63,377
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,641
<INVENTORY>                                     50,604
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               269,865
<PP&E>                                          36,820
<DEPRECIATION>                                  22,090
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 438,842
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           64,735
<BONDS>                                         74,359
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,684
<OTHER-SE>                                     202,374
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   438,842
<SALES>                                        258,085
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               258,085
<CGS>                                          132,896
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  132,896
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                35,341
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,352
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,770
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 37,886
<INCOME-TAX>                                    11,055
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             26,831
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    26,831
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .70
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        


</TABLE>
# C_2013141EN.01001502.xml

| 18.5.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 141/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.5.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 141/15

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 6 March 2013 — Société Mac GmbH v Ministère de l’agriculture, de l’agroalimentaire et de la forêt

(Case C-108/13)

2013/C 141/27

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Société Mac GmbH

Applicant:

Defendant: Ministère de l’agriculture, de l’agroalimentaire et de la forêt

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Do Articles 34 and 36 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union preclude national legislation which makes, inter alia, the grant of a parallel import marketing authorisation for a plant protection product subject to the condition that the product in question have, in the exporting State, a marketing authorisation granted in accordance with Directive 91/414/EEC, (1) and which consequently does not permit the grant of a parallel import marketing authorisation for a product which has, in the exporting State, a parallel import marketing authorisation and which is identical to a product authorised in the importing State?

1

---

(1)  Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (OJ 1991 L 230, p. 1).

1

---
exv10w1



 





Exhibit 10.1



Aspect Medical Systems, Inc.

One Upland Road

Norwood, Massachusetts 02062




November 7, 2007



Boston Scientific Corporation

One Boston Scientific Place

Natick, Massachusetts, 01760

Attention: Treasurer and Assistant General Counsel




To Whom It May Concern:



Reference is hereby made to (i) the Termination and Repurchase Agreement (the
“Agreement”), dated as of June 11, 2007, between Boston Scientific Corporation, a Delaware
corporation (“BSC”), and Aspect Medical Systems, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the
“Company”) and (ii) the Registration Rights Agreement dated as of June 11, 2007 by and
between BSC and the Company (the “Registration Rights Agreement”). Capitalized terms used herein
without definition shall have the meanings assigned to such terms in the Agreement.



In connection with the proposed sale by BSC to Orbimed Advisors of 1,513,239 shares of the
Company’s common stock currently held by BSC (the “Subject Shares”), the Company hereby
waives its rights under Sections 3.1 and3 .2 of the Agreement with respect to the Subject Shares,
and affirms that it will not exercise the Call Option, in each case with respect to any and all of
the Subject Shares transferred to Orbimed Advisors. In addition, the parties hereby agree and
acknowledge that in connection with the foregoing waivers, and effective upon the sale of the
Subject Shares, the Registration Rights Agreement shall be terminated in its entirety and shall
have no further force or effect.



Please acknowledge your receipt and acceptance of the terms of this letter by signing this letter
in the space provided below.




	 	 	 	 	 
	 	Best regards,



ASPECT MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC.

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ Michael Falvey
 	 
	 	 	Name:  	Michael Falvey 	 
	 	 	Title:  	CFO 	 
	 



	 	 	 	 	 
	Acknowledged and Agreed:



BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION

 	 	 
	By:  	/s/ Lawrence J. Knoph
 	 	 
	 	Name:  	Lawrence J. Knoph 	 	 
	 	Title:  	SVP