alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-10.13




 Exhibit 10.13 

GOODRICH PETROLEUM CORPORATION 

DIRECTOR COMPENSATION AGREEMENT 

This Director Compensation Agreement (“Agreement”), effective as of June 1, 2011 is by and between Patrick E. Malloy
(“Malloy”) and Goodrich Petroleum Corporation (“GPC”). 
 WHEREAS, Malloy serves as the Chairman of the Board of
Directors of GPC; and 
 WHEREAS, GPC desires to incentivize Malloy to continue as the Chairman; 

NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereby agree that Malloy’s compensation for serving as the Chairman for the period beginning
June 1, 2011 and ending May 31, 2013 shall be as follows: 
 1. Beginning on June 15, 2011 and on or about the
15th business day of each month thereafter on which Malloy continues as the Chairman, until May 15, 2013, GPC shall pay Malloy $41,667.00 (Forty One Thousand Six Hundred and Sixty Seven
Dollars). 
 2. On December 1, 2011, and on December 1, 2012, Malloy shall be granted a Stock Payment Award under
the GPC Long-Term Incentive Plan with respect to that number of restricted “phantom” shares of Common Stock of GPC that have, on such date, an aggregate Value of $500,000.00 (Five Hundred Thousand Dollars), with Value being the closing
price per share of the Common Stock on such date, as reported on the New York Stock Exchange. Such shares to vest on the anniversary date of each respective grant over the next three years. 

3. If Malloy ceases to be the Chairman for any reason prior to May 31, 2013, all future monthly payments and stock grants
provided hereunder shall automatically cease. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement effective for all
purposes as provided above. 
  

			
	GOODRICH PETROLEUM CORPORATION
		
	By:	 	/s/    Michael Killelea
	Title:	 	Senior Vice President, General Counsel and
		 	 Corporate Secretary

	
	CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD
	
	/s/ Patrick E. Malloy
	 Patrick E. Malloy
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jorge Singfield, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from three sentences of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Maraño, J.), all imposed March 27, 1990, upon his conviction of robbery in the first degree (two counts) and robbery in the second degree under Indictment No. 11049/89, robbery in the first degree under Indictment No. 11130/89, and robbery in the second degree under Kings County Indictment No. 11490/89, upon his pleas of guilty, the sentences being five concurrent indeterminate terms of *BVi*to 11 years imprisonment.

Ordered that the sentences are modified, on the law, by reducing the terms of imprisonment imposed for robbery in the second degree to *3%*to 11 years; as so modified, the sentences are affirmed.

The Supreme Court erred in imposing sentences of *5V2*to 11 years on the defendant’s convictions of robbery in the second degree. Inasmuch as robbery in the second degree is a class C felony *(see,*Penal Law § 160.10), the minimum period of imprisonment must be one-third of the maximum period of imprisonment *(see,*Penal Law § 70.02 [4]). We have therefore modified the sentences accordingly.

We have considered the defendant’s claim of excessiveness and find it to be without merit. Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Sullivan, Harwood and Miller, JJ., concur.
The Honorable Paul A. Magnuson, Chief Judge, United States District Court for 1

the District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendation of the Honorable

Arthur J. Boylan, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 97-1921

___________

John T. Maclin, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United

States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

John J. Callahan, Commissioner of *

Social Security, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: October 16, 1997

 Filed: October 31,

1997

___________

Before WOLLMAN, LOKEN, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

John T. Maclin appeals the district court&s order

1

granting summary judgment affirming the Commissioner&s

decision to deny Maclin disability insurance benefits

(DIB) and supplemental security income (SSI). After a

careful review of the record and the parties& submissions

we conclude substantial evidence on the record as a whole
-2-

supports the ALJ&s conclusion that Maclin was engaged in

substantial gainful activity during the period for which

he seeks benefits, and thus was ineligible for DIB or

SSI. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the

district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-6157
VESTEL MCKINLEY MOYER, Petitioner - Appellant, versus PATRICIA HUFFMAN; EDWARD W. MURRAY, Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CA-94-344-R) Submitted: May 29, 1997 Decided: June 10, 1997 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Vestel McKinley Moyer, Appellant Pro Se. Eugene Paul Murphy, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997), alleging ineffective assistance of counsel in failing to pursue Appellant's appeal rights. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. The district court's determination of credibility will not be disturbed on appeal. United States v. Locklear , 829 F.2d 1314, 1317 (4th Cir.1987). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 6290

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. BRIAN MICHAEL HAPPEL , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Norfolk

. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. ( 2:95

- cr - 00013

- 1 )

Submitted : May 16, 2019 Decided: May 21, 2019

Before DIAZ and THACKER , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Vacated and remanded with instructions by un published per curiam opinion

. Brian Michael Happel, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Brian M. Happel appea ls the district court’s order denying his motion to expunge
his criminal record. The district court found no extreme or exceptional circumstances supporting expungement, pursuant to Allen v. Webster , 742 F.2d 153, 155 (4th Cir. 1984).
See United States v . Happel , No. 2:95

- cr - 00013

- 1 (E.D. Va. Feb. 11, 2019). We conclude, however, that federal ancillary jurisdiction does not extend to petitions for equitable expungement. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am. , 511 U.S. 375 , 379

- 81 (1994) ; see also Rice v. Rivera , 617 F.3d 802, 807 (4th Cir. 2010) (recognizing that “[e]very federal appellate court has a special obligation to satisfy itself not only of its own jurisdiction, but also that of the lower courts in a cause under review” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s order and remand this matter to the
district court with instructions to dismiss Happel’s motion for lack of jurisdiction

. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal con tentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process. VACATED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS
Exhibit 32.1



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 Native American Energy Group, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2012 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), we, Joseph G. D’Arrigo and Raj S. Nanvaan,
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, respectively, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as
adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | 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 result of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|Date: August 14, 2012   | 
|----------------------- | 
|                        | 
|/s/ Joseph G. D’Arrigo  | 
|Joseph G. D’Arrigo,     | 
|Chief Executive Officer | 
|                        | 
|Date: August 14, 2012   | 
|                        | 
|/s/ Raj S. Nanvaan      | 
|Raj S. Nanvaan,         | 
|Chief Financial Officer |
Exhibit 32-54
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO  18 U. S. C. SECTION 1350  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (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.
 Date: February 23, 2010
    /S/ DAVID E. MEADORDavid E. MeadorExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of The Detroit Edison Company
TEST 

July 3, 2012
July 9, 2015

Mr. Jay Lasco

2484 Margaret Drive

Fenton, MI 48430

Dear Mr. Lasco:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request 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 Not Process Your Request

We entered your July 1st 2015, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-

2681), but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does

not 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.

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.
2

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

 Airport Rules Division

Enclosure
EXHIBIT 32


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, the
undersigned officer of SGreenTech Group Limited (formerly
Alderwood Acquisition Corporation (the "Company"),
hereby certify to my knowledge that:

The Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30,
2011 of the Company fully complies, in all material respects,
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the
Report fairly represents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

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.


                             /s/ Charles In
                                 President, Director,
                                 Chief Executivie Officer,
                                 Chief Financial Officer and
                                 Principal Accounting Officer
Date: August 14, 2011
AD Economic Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2013-0878 Directorate ID: 2013-SW-033-AD

Helicopter Model: Eurocopter France Model AS350B, BA, B1, B2, B3, AS350C, D, D1, 

AS355E, F, F1, F2, N, and NP Helicopters

Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 938 Helicopters in the US Registry.

Reason: The actions of this AD are intended to detect a crack in the pitch horn to prevent failure 

of the pitch horn, loss of the anti-torque function, and subsequent loss of control of the 

helicopter.

Costs:

Parts per Helicopter $1,946 if necessary to replace a pitch horn

Labor per Helicopter

(.1 work hour to inspect a 

pitch horn, 1 work hour to 

dye-penetrant inspect a pitch 

horn x $85/work-hour)

$94

Other (Explain) If it is 

necessary to replace a part, it 

would take 1 work hour x 

$85.

Total Cost per Helicopter $2,031, assuming a part is replaced.

Total US Fleet Cost $88,172 labor for the inspections

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No ()

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No ()

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

Yes ( ) No ()

Project Engineer: Robert Grant
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 169 (Thursday, August 30, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44304-44305]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-18987]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[USITC SE-18-040]


Government in the Sunshine Act Meeting Notice

Agency Holding the Meeting:  United States International Trade 
Commission.

TIME AND DATE:  September 7, 2018 at 11:00 a.m.

PLACE:  Room 101, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: 
(202) 205-2000.

STATUS:  Open to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 
1. Agendas for future meetings: None.
2. Minutes.
3. Ratification List.
4. Vote on Inv. No. 731-TA-344 (Fourth Review) (Tapered Roller Bearings 
from China). The Commission is currently scheduled to complete and file 
its determination and views of the Commission by September 24, 2018.
5. Outstanding action jackets: None.

    In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, 
not

[[Page 44305]]

disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda 
of the following meeting.

    By order of the Commission:

    Issued: August 28, 2018.
William Bishop,
Supervisory Hearings and Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 2018-18987 Filed 8-28-18; 4:15 pm]
 BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
1 In The



### Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO

. 09

- 1 6

- 00 414

- C V



### ____________________

AURITA F. ARAUJO LINDLEY

, Appellant

V.

WILLIAM DICK LINDLEY

, Appellee

______________________________________ __ _______________________________

On A ppeal from the 279th District Court

Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Cause No

. F

- 225,100

________________________________________ _______________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On November 7 , 2016, we notified the parties that the notice of appeal did

not appear to have been timely filed. The appellant

, Aurita F. Araujo Lindley

, then

filed a motion for an extension of time to file her notice of appeal.

The trial cou rt signed the judgment on June 24 , 2016, and the appellate

timetables were extended by the timely filing of a motion for new trial. See Tex. R.

App. P. 26.1(a). Notice of appeal wa s due to be filed on September 22 , 2016. Id.

Appellant filed a notice of appeal on October 28 , 2016, more than ninety days from2

the date of judgment and outs ide the period for which we may grant an extension

of time to perfect appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.3. Accordingly, we deny the

motion for extension of time to f ile a notice of appeal and we dismiss the appeal

for lack of jurisdiction.

APPEAL DISMISS ED.

________________________________ STEVE McKEITHEN

Chief Jus tice

Submitted on December 7, 2016

Opinion Delivered December 8, 2016

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.
### APPENDIX 9E 2008 INPUT 2005

**- REG.D** 

REG DIST * RESULTING MOBILE6

- BASED REGISTRATION FRACTIONS

* *MOBILE6 REGISTRATION FRACTIONS BY VEHICLE CLASS AND AGE * LDV M5 LDGV

1 0.055 0.073 0.074 0.073 0.078 0.0 85 0.076 0.069 0.066 0.056 0.059 0.049 0.042 0.032 0.025 0.022 0.017 0.013 0.009 0.006 0.004 0.002 0.002 0.001 0.013 * LDT1 M5 LDGT1

2 0.075 0.100 0.083 0.087 0.080 0.088 0.079 0.078 0.064 0.051 0.048 0.042 0.029 0.019 0.014 0.011 0.012 0.012 0.008 0.005 0.003 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.006 * LDT2 M5 LDGT1

3 0.075 0.100 0.083 0.087 0.080 0.088 0.0 79 0.078 0.064 0.051 0.048 0.042 0.029 0.019 0.014 0.011 0.012 0.012 0.008 0.005 0.003 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.006 * LDT3 M5 LDGT2

4 0.089 0.118 0.110 0.096 0.088 0.085 0.086 0.058 0.053 0.039 0.041 0.031 0.018 0.013 0.008 0.010 0.013 0.013 0.008 0.006 0.004 0.002 0.002 0.001 0.008 * LDT4 M5 LDGT2

5 0.089 0.118 0.110 0.096 0.088 0.085 0.086 0.0 58 0.053 0.039 0.041 0.031 0.018 0.013 0.008 0.010 0.013 0.013 0.008 0.006 0.004 0.002 0.002 0.001 0.008 * HDV2B M5 HDVs (Combined HDGV and HDDV)

6 0.086 0.115 0.115 0.102 0.088 0.084 0.070 0.039 0.061 0.035 0.041 0.028 0.017 0.011 0.008 0.010 0.017 0.016 0.012 0.012 0.008 0.005 0.003 0.002 0.013 * HDV3 M5 HDVs (Combined HDGV and HDDV)

7 0.066 0.088 0.0 76 0.080 0.076 0.075 0.076 0.038 0.062 0.037 0.051 0.039 0.028 0.018 0.012 0.015 0.024 0.032 0.025 0.023 0.014 0.012 0.006 0.003 0.025 * HDV4 M5 HDVs (Combined HDGV and HDDV)

8 0.061 0.082 0.075 0.078 0.091 0.115 0.103 0.044 0.088 0.041 0.056 0.030 0.018 0.015 0.008 0.012 0.020 0.022 0.007 0.007 0.006 0.004 0.002 0.001 0.017 * HDV5 M5 HDVs (Combined HDGV and HDDV)9 0.078 0.105 0.103 0.082 0.076 0.087 0.091 0.032 0.045

0.027 0.035 0.020 0.017 0.012 0.009 0.015 0.021 0.017 0.031 0.018 0.013 0.012 0.005 0.003 0.045 * HDV6 M5 HDVs (Combined HDGV and HDDV) 10 0.063 0.084 0.057 0.067 0.081 0.099 0.083 0.061 0.048 0.038 0.052 0.024 0.021 0.018 0.016 0.016 0.018 0.021 0.022 0.018 0.015 0.011 0.006 0.005 0.054 * HDV7 M5 HDVs (Combined HDGV and HDDV) 11 0.050 0.067 0.050 0.077 0.072 0.111 0.070 0.071 0.057 0.042 0.048 0.027 0.021 0.016 0.019 0.023 0.020 0.033 0.033 0.021 0.015 0.012 0 .004 0.003 0.039 * HDV8a M5 HDVs (Combined HDGV and HDDV) 12 0.031 0.041 0.035 0.041 0.052 0.063 0.057 0.049 0.043 0.044 0.079 0.043 0.026 0.024 0.022 0.027 0.039 0.042 0.042 0.036 0.031 0.017 0.010 0.009 0.096 * HDV8b M5 HDVs (Combined HDGV and HDDV) 13 0.042 0.056 0.055 0.048 0.078 0.098 0.083 0.064 0.051 0.044 0.053 0.036 0.025 0.013 0.011 0.014 0.026 0.040 0. 042 0.028 0.024 0.010 0.004 0.005 0.051 * HDBS M5 HDVs (Combined HDGV and HDDV) 14 0.071 0.095 0.063 0.085 0.063 0.151 0.085 0.117 0.108 0.048 0.043 0.010 0.023 0.011 0.007 0.009 0.004 0.004 0.003 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 * HDBT M5 HDDVs 15 0.052 0.069 0.074 0.080 0.090 0.108 0.100 0.082 0.058 0.047 0.061 0.018 0.021 0.013 0.014 0.017 0. 015 0.010 0.014 0.009 0.009 0.006 0.005 0.002 0.029 * Motorcycles M5 MC 16 0.056 0.075 0.094 0.082 0.080 0.065 0.056 0.042 0.033 0.032 0.026 0.022 0.020 0.016 0.012 0.013 0.016 0 .016 0.019 0.028 0.025 0.016 0.018 0.025 0.114
Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

Plant ID 06816

Removed 

from Public 

(Non-CBI) 

Docket1

Copyright 

Flag2

File Name Description

x 06816\06816_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

06816\06816_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

06816\06816_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted

x 06816\06816_PartA.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 06816\06816_PartB.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 06816\06816_PartC.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 06816\06816_PartD.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 06816\06816_PartH.xls Plant submitted survey file

06816\Certification Letter_06816.PDF Plant certification statement

x 06816\Extra Files Submitted by Plant\06816_PartA_locked.xls Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 06816\Supporting Documentation\06816_WATER CYCLES - Drake PROCESS WATER SYS.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 06816\Supporting Documentation\06816_WATER CYCLES - Drake WW TREATMENT POND SYS.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 06816\Supporting Documentation\Drake 06816 site map.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1

 Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database . 

2

 Copyright documents are available from the docket.
Order entered June 8, 2021

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 21

- 00377

- CV

CITY OF GARLAND, TEXAS AND GARLAND CIVIL SERVICE

COMMISSION , Appellant s

V.

JON JORDAN , Appe llee

On Appeal from the 134th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 20

- 12515

O RDER

Before the Court is appellants’ June 4, 2021 unopposed motion for extension

of time to file their brief

. We GRANT the motion and ORDER th e brief be filed

no later than July 6, 2021.

/s/ CRAIG SMITH JUSTICE
# C_2015322EN.01000601.xml

| 30.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 322/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 322/6

---

Commission communication pursuant to Article 17(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community

Invitation to tender in respect of the operation of scheduled air services in accordance with public service obligations

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2015/C 322/06)

| Member State | France |
| --- | --- |
| Route concerned | Brest (Guipavas)-Ouessant |
| Period of validity of the contract | from 1 April 2016 to 31 March 2020 |
| Deadline for the submission of applications and tenders | 2 December 2015, 16.00, Paris time (France) |
| Address from which the text of the invitation to tender and any relevant information and/or documentation relating to the public tender and the public service obligation can be obtained | Conseil départemental du Finistère |
| Direction des Déplacements |
| M. Stéphane Marsille |
| 32, boulevard Dupleix |
| CS 29029 |
| 29196 Quimper cedex |
| FRANCE |
| Tel. +33 298762052 |
| E-mail: stephane.marsille@finistere.fr |

Member State

France

Route concerned

Brest (Guipavas)-Ouessant

Period of validity of the contract

from 1 April 2016 to 31 March 2020

Deadline for the submission of applications and tenders

2 December 2015, 16.00, Paris time (France)

Address from which the text of the invitation to tender and any relevant information and/or documentation relating to the public tender and the public service obligation can be obtained

Conseil départemental du Finistère

Direction des Déplacements

M. Stéphane Marsille

32, boulevard Dupleix

CS 29029

29196 Quimper cedex

FRANCE

Tel. +33 298762052

E-mail: stephane.marsille@finistere.fr

---