alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2021189EN.01001601.xml

| 17.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 189/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 189/16

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 February 2021 — Braesch and Others v Commission

(Case T-161/18) (1)

(Action for annulment - State aid - Aid for the precautionary restructuring of Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena - Preliminary examination stage - Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market - Plea of inadmissibility - Status as an interested party - Interest in bringing proceedings - Locus standi - Admissibility)

(2021/C 189/17)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Anthony Braesch (Luxembourg, Luxembourg), Trinity Investments DAC (Dublin, Ireland), Bybrook Capital Master Fund LP (Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands), Bybrook Capital Hazelton Master Fund LP (Grand Cayman), Bybrook Capital Badminton Fund LP (Grand Cayman) (represented by: M. Siragusa, A. Champsaur, G. Faella and L. Prosperetti, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Blanck and A. Bouchagiar, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2017) 4690 final of 4 July 2017 on State Aid SA.47677 (2017/N) — Italy — New aid and amended restructuring plan of Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Rejects the plea of inadmissibility; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Rejects the plea of inadmissibility;

| 2. | Reserves the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Reserves the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 190, 4.6.2018.

---
October 5, 1999

21579

#### Blankenship v. State

Affirmed
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 Annual Report  of American  HealthChoice, Inc.  (the
 "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending September 30, 2005 as  filed
 with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on  the  date  hereof  (the
 "Report"), I  John C.  Stuecheli, Chief  Financial Officer  of the  Company,
 certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. S 1350, as  adopted pursuant to S 906 of  the
 Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge and belief:

      (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.


 /s/ John C. Stuecheli

 John C. Stuecheli
 Chief Financial Officer
 January 13, 2006
## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

CORRECTED: October 5, 2005 at 1:00 PM

04-1581

NOVO NORDISK PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., and NOVO NORDISK A/S,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

BIO-TECHNOLOGY GENERAL CORP. and

TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Steven E. Lipman , Darby & Darby, P.C., of New York, New York, argued for plaintiffs-appellants. Of counsel were James Edward Hanft

, Paul M. Zagar

, Jay P. Lessler

, Kevin L. Reiner

, Robert Schaffer and Joseph R. Robinson

.

John W. Bateman , Kenyon & Kenyon, of Washington, DC, argued for defendants-appellees. On the brief was Richard L. DeLucia, of New York, New York. Of counsel were Steven J. Lee , and Thomas J. Meloro , of New York, New York, and Kenneth R. Corsello , of Washington, DC.

Appealed from: United States District Court for the District of Delaware

. Chief Judge Sue L. Robinson
<PAGE>

 Exhibit 10(xiii) - Amendment dated January 30, 2001 to the MAF Bancorp, Inc.
                       Executive Annual Incentive Plan.
<PAGE>

                                                                Exhibit 10(xiii)


                           CERTIFICATE OF RESOLUTION


I, Carolyn Pihera, do hereby certify that I am the duly elected and acting
Secretary of MAF Bancorp, Inc. and that the following is a true and correct copy
of certain Resolutions adopted by the Board of Directors of said Company at
their regular meeting held January 30, 2001, at which meeting a quorum of the
members of said Board were present and acting throughout:

WHEREAS, the MAF Bancorp Executive Annual Incentive Plan (the "Plan") provides
that annual bonus payments will be determined in part based on the Company's
meeting certain annual performance standards,

WHEREAS, the "Threshold" performance level is defined in the Plan to be equal to
80% of the "Target" performance level and the "Superior" performance level is
defined in the Plan to be equal to 120% of the "Target" performance level,

WHEREAS, the Board wishes to provide additional incentive to its executive group
to achieve above average Company performance levels and further wishes to avoid
paying annual bonuses when Company performance is below average,

NOW THEREFORE BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, that the second sentence of the second
paragraph of Section VII of the Plan is hereby amended to read as follows:

     The Threshold performance level (90% of Target) will define the starting
         ---------
     point for award funding (i.e., no award will be funded if actual
     performance is below the Threshold level).

FURTHER, that the last sentence of the second paragraph of Section VII of the
Plan is hereby amended to read as follows:

     The Superior performance level (110% of Target) will define the maximum for
         --------
     award funding (i.e., no additional award funding will apply if actual
     performance is above the Superior level).

I do further certify that the foregoing Resolutions have not been altered or
amended, but remain in force and effect.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have executed this Certificate and affixed the Company's
seal this 2nd day of February, 2001.

MAF BANCORP, INC.
<PAGE>

/s/ Carolyn Pihera
-------------------------------------
Carolyn Pihera, Corporate Secretary
Exhibit 99.1

 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 Annual Report  of American  HealthChoice, Inc.  (the
 "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending September 30, 2002 as  filed
 with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on  the  date  hereof  (the
 "Report"), I  Dr. J.  W. Stucki,  Chief Executive  Officer of  the  Company,
 certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. S 1350, as  adopted pursuant to S 906 of  the
 Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge and belief:

      (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.


 /s/ Dr. J. W. Stucki
 -----------------------
 Dr. J. W. Stucki
 Chief Executive Officer
 January 14, 2003
19942

#### State v. Ross

Affirmed
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 22 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 22

 Expressing the sense of the House that a Contract with America should 
                   restore American competitiveness.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 7, 2015

 Mr. Rice of South Carolina submitted the following resolution; which 
was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the 
    Committees on the Judiciary, Natural Resources, and Energy and 
Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in 
   each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the 
                jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Expressing the sense of the House that a Contract with America should 
                   restore American competitiveness.

Whereas Congress should conclude a Contract with America to restore American 
        competitiveness;
Whereas a Contract with America should include a roadmap to move American 
        competitiveness forward; and
Whereas Drs. Michael Porter and Jan Rivkin have developed an eight-point plan to 
        restore American competitiveness: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That it is the sense of the House that a Contract with 
America should include a roadmap to restore American competitiveness 
by--
            (1) simplifying the corporate tax structure with lower 
        statutory rates and no loopholes;
            (2) taxing overseas profits earned by American 
        multinational companies only where they are earned;
            (3) easing the immigration of highly skilled individuals;
            (4) responsibly developing America's shale-gas and oil 
        reserves;
            (5) aggressively addressing distortions and abuses in the 
        international trading system;
            (6) improving American logistics, communications, and 
        energy infrastructure;
            (7) simplifying and streamlining Federal regulation; and
            (8) creating a sustainable Federal budget, including 
        entitlement reform.
                                 <all>
```
#### Liftee v. Boyer

23760

08/04/2005

Dismissed

108 Hawai'i 89, 117 P.3d 821
Chapter 2.4.6. – Infection with *Perkinsus olseni*

**Annex 61. Item 10.2.1. – Sections 2.2.1. and 2.2.2. of Chapter 2.4.6. ‘Infection with *P. olseni*’**

CHAPTER 2.4.6.INFECTION WITH *PERKINSUS OLSENI*

[...]

2.2.	Host factors

2.2.1.	Susceptible host species

Species that fulfil the criteria for listing as susceptible to infection with *Perkinsus olseni* according to Chapter 1.5. of the *Aquatic Animal Health Code* (*Aquatic Code*) are: 

*~~Perkinsus olseni~~*~~has an extremely wide host range. Known hosts include the clams *Anadara trapezia*, *Austrovenus stutchburyi*, *Ruditapes decussatus*, *R. philippinarum, Tridacna maxima, T. crocea, Protothaca jedoensis*and*Pitar rostrata*(Cremonte *et al.,* 2005; Goggin & Lester, 1995; Park *et al.,* 2006; Sheppard & Phillips, 2008; Villalba *et al.,* 2004;); oysters *Crassostrea gigas*, *C. ariakensis*, and *C. sikamea*(Villalba *et al.,* 2004); pearl oysters *Pinctada margaritifera, P. martensii*, and *P. fucata*(Goggin & Lester, 1995; Sanil *et al.,* 2010); abalone *Haliotis rubra, H. laevigata, H. scalaris,*and*H. cyclobates*(Goggin & Lester, 1995).) Other bivalve and gastropod species might be susceptible to this parasite, especially in the known geographical range. Members of the families Arcidae, Malleidae, Isognomonidae, Chamidae and Veneridae are particularly susceptible, and their selective sampling may reveal the presence of *P. olseni* when only light infections occur in other families in the same habitat.~~

2.2.2.	~~Susceptible stages of the host~~Species with incomplete evidence for susceptibility

~~All stages after settlement are susceptible.~~

Species for which there is incomplete evidence to fulfil the criteria for listing as susceptible to infection with *P. olseni* according to Chapter 1.5. of the *Aquatic Code* are: 

In addition, pathogen-specific positive polymerase chain reaction (PCR) results have been reported in the following species, but no active infection has been demonstrated: 

[...]

____________
trtc_ex1040.htm

  EXHIBIT 10.40
 
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO 
 
12% CONVERTIBLE PROMISSORY NOTE
 
This Amendment No. 1 (this “Amendment”), dated as of December 13, 2016, to that certain 12% Convertible Promissory Note, issued by Terra Tech Corp. (the “Borrower”) to _________ (the “Lender”) on December 14, 2015 (the “Note”) pursuant to that certain Securities Purchase Agreement, by and between the Borrower and the Lender, dated as of December 14, 2015, is made and entered into by and between the Borrower and the Lender. Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meaning ascribed to them in the Note. 
 
WHEREAS, the Borrower and the Lender desire to amend the Note on the terms and conditions set forth below.
 
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual agreements contained herein, intending to be legally bound hereby, the parties agree as follows:
 
Section 1. Amendments to Note.
 
1.1 The definition of “Maturity Date” in the Note is hereby amended to “December 13, 2017”.
 
Section 2. Remainder of Note. Except as set forth herein, the Note is ratified and confirmed in all respects and shall not be amended or otherwise modified. All other terms and conditions of the Note not in conflict with the terms of this Amendment shall remain in full force and effect. In the event there is a conflict between the terms of the Note and the terms of this Amendment, the terms provided in this Amendment shall control. For the avoidance of doubt, the parties agree that no late fees, penalty interest, liquidated damages or any other amounts shall be due as a result of this Amendment.
 
Section 3. Governing Law. This Amendment shall be governed by, construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of New York and not by choice of law principles or the laws of any other state.
 
Section 4. Entire Agreement and Amendments. The Note, as amended by this Amendment, embodies the entire agreement and understanding of the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersede all prior agreements and understandings between the parties.
 
Section 5. Counterparts. This Amendment (or the signature pages hereof) may be executed in any number of counterparts; all such counterparts shall be deemed to constitute one and the same instrument; and each of said counterparts shall be deemed an original hereof.
 
[remainder of page intentionally left blank; signature page follows]
 
	 
	1


	

	 


 
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be executed and delivered as of the date first above written.
 
 
	 	BORROWER: 
TERRA TECH CORP.
	
	 	 	 	 
		By:		
	 
	Name: 
		 
	 	Title: 		 
	 	 	 	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	LENDER:
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	By: 
	 
	 

	 
	Name: 
	 
	 

	 
	Title: 
	 
	 



 
 
 
 
	2
| Parent                                               | Subsidiary                                           | Percentage ofOwnership     | State ofIncorporation orOrganization |
|------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------|--------------------------------------|
|                                                 |                                                 |                       |                                 |
|                                                 |                                                 |                       |                                 |
| Great Southern Bancorp, Inc.                         | Great Southern Bank                                  | 100%                       | Missouri                             |
| Great Southern Bancorp, Inc.                         | Great Southern Capital Trust II                      |     100%(1) | Delaware                             |
| Great Southern Bancorp, Inc.                         | Great Southern Capital Trust III                     |     100%(1) | Delaware                             |
| Great Southern Bank                                  | Great Southern Real Estate Development Corporation   | 100%                       | Missouri                             |
| Great Southern Bank                                  | Great Southern Community Development Company, L.L.C. | 100%                       | Missouri                             |
| Great Southern Bank                                  | Great Southern Financial Corporation                 | 100%                       | Missouri                             |
| Great Southern Bank                                  | GS, L.L.C.                                           | 100%                       | Missouri                             |
| Great Southern Bank                                  | GSSC, L.L.C.                                         | 100%                       | Missouri                             |
| Great Southern Bank                                  | GSRE Holding, L.L.C.                                 | 100%                       | Missouri                             |
| Great Southern Bank                                  | GSRE Holding II, L.L.C.                              | 100%                       | Missouri                             |
| Great Southern Bank                                  | GSB One, L.L.C.                                      | 100%                       | Missouri                             |
| GSB One, L.L.C.                                      | GSB Two, L.L.C.                                      |   89%                 | Missouri                             |
| GSRE Holding, L.L.C.                                 | GSRE Management, L.L.C.                              | 100%                       | Missouri                             |
| Great Southern Community Development Company, L.L.C. | Great Southern CDE, L.L.C.                           | 100%                       | Missouri                             |
### SERVED : OCTOBE R4 , 201 1 U.S . DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N M^/^iTM^^'^^

OFFIC E OFHEARING S -,1^:^:0^/;^}O^^^. . WASHINGTON , D C '•' ' •'"'''''^- ' ^'''^^-^'''•f'^-'i^' ^ 

### ?0i | GL I 

### - 5 

### P 2

- !i 2 I N THE MAT PE

RO F SKYWES T AIRLINE S FA A DOCKE T NO . [T O B E ASSIGNED ] (Civi l Penalt

y Action ) FDM S NO . FAA-20n-06H 0 NOTIC E O FASSIGNMEN T O FPROCEEDIN GUNDE ROTHE RFDM S DOCKE T

AND CLOSUR E O FTHI S FDM S DOCKE T B y notic e serve dAugus t

29 , 2011 , thi s proceeding—designate da s Cas e No . 2011NM06003 3 an ddockete di n th e Federal Docket

Managemen t

Syste m(FDMS ) a s FAA

2011-0779—wa s assigne dto Administrativ e La w Judg e RichardC . Goodwin . Th e sam e proceedin g wa s previousl y dockete di n FDM S a s rAA-20 1 N068 0 bu t wa s not transmitte dto thi s office . Accordingly , tha

t docke t i s hereb y closed .

Rohiii e A . Yodc r Chie f Administrativ e L

a Attacliment

- Servic e Lis tFDMSNo . FAA-20n-068 0 (Civi l Penall y Action ) SERVIC E LIS T ORIGINA L& ON E COP Y Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . Washington , D C 2059 1 Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-43 0 Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Suit e 2WI000 '

ON ECOP Y Tod dC . Emerson , Respondent' s Representativ e Directo r - Governmen t

an dLega l Affair s SkyWcs t Airline s 44 4 Sout hRive r

Roa d St . George , U T 8479 0 TEL : 435-634-353 0 FAX : 435-634-350 5 Jeffre y M . Harper , Complainant' s Counse l Attorney , Offic e o f

th e Regiona l Counse l Northwes t

Mountai n Region , ANM- 7 Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 160 1 Lin dAvenue , S.W . Renton , W A 9805 7 TEL : 425-227-216 1 FAX : 425-227-100 7 Th e Honorabl e Richar dC . Goodwin . Administrativ e La w Judg e Offic e o f Hearings , M-2 0 U.S . Departmen t

o f Transportatio n 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E . Washington , D C 2059 0 JELL_202:366-213 9 Attorney-Adviso r 202-366-: ) 12-1-be'gaI'A'ssistan t FAX : 202-366-753 6

' Service wa

s b y U.S . Mail . Fo

r service i n perso n o r b y expeditedcourier, us

e th e followin g address : Tedera

l Aviatio n Administration , 60

0 Independence Avenue , S.W. , Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Suit

e 2W1000 , Washington , D C 20591 ; Anention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk . AGC-430 .

- 2 -
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

March 17, 2020

No. 04-19-00832-CV

Maryvel SUDAY, Independent Executor to Petitioner, Olga Tamez de Suday,

Appellant

v.

Jesus Lozano SUDAY,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law, Val Verde County, Texas

Trial Court No. 3,625 CCL

The Honorable Stephen B. Ables, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Counsel for appellant has filed a Motion for Leave to Withdraw. Counsel’s 

motion meets the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 6.5. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 6.5. We GRANT counsel’s motion to for leave to withdraw.

_________________________________

Irene Rios, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 17th day of March, 2020.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ,

Clerk of Court
### -

ClintonT. Eldridge, Petitioner, 

### v. Blake R. Davis, Respondent.UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil ActionNo.

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

# FILED AUG 2 52010 Clerk, U.S. District &Bankruptcy Courts for the District of Columbia 

# 10 

# 1440

This action, broughtpro se, is before the Court on petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus, accompanied by an application to proceed informapauperis. The Court will grant the application to proceed informapauperis and will dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction.

,

.Petitioner is a prisoner at the United States Penitentiary in Florence, Colorado, serving a sentence of40 to 120 years imposedby the Superior Court ofthe District ofColumbia on July 19, 1984. Pet. at 2. He challenges his convictions on multiple counts ofrape, robbery and burglary following his pleas ofguilty. See Pet. at 2 & Ex. A. Itis established that challenges to a Superior Courtjudgment ofconviction must be pursued in that court under D.C. Code 

### § 23-110,
see Blair-Bey v. Quick, 151 F.3d 1036, 1042-43 (D.C. Cir. 1998); Byrdv. Henderson, 119 F.3d 34,36-37 (D.C. Cir. 1997), and that absent a showing ofan inadequate or ineffective local remedy, "aDistrict ofColumbiaprisoner has no recourse to a federaljudicial forum," Garris v. Lindsay, 794 F.2d 722, 726 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 993 (1986) (internal footnote omitted). Under District ofColumbia law, [an] application for a writ ofhabeas corpus inbehalfofa prisoner who is authorized toapply for reliefby motion pursuant to this section shall not be entertained by ... any Federal ... court ifit appears ...that the Superior Court has denied him relief, unless it also appears that the remedy by motion is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality ofhis detention. D.C. Code § 23-110(g). Petitioner acknowledges that he has applied for reliefunder § 23-110
more than once and that "[ e]achtime I appeal, the court always deny [sic] my appeal. ...Even the Supreme Court have [sic] denied appeal." Pet. at 4; see Ex. H (Judgment ofthe District of Columbia Court ofAppeals) (observing in December 2009 that "this appeal represents appellant's ninth postjudgment filing wherein [he] raises issues that have previously been considered and rejected by the Superior Court and this court"). Petitioner's lack ofsuccess in those courts does not render his local remedy inadequate or ineffective, see Garris v. Lindsay, 794 F.2d at 727; Charles v. Chandler, 180 F.3d 753,756-58 (6th Cir. 1999) (citing cases), and he has provided no other basis for finding the local remedy inadequate. See Williams v. Martinez, 586 F.3d 995, 999 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (concluding that this Court would havejurisdiction over a "federal habeas petition asserting ineffective assistance ofappellate counsel after [the petitioner has] moved to recall the mandate in the D.C. Court ofAppeals[.]"). This Court therefore lacks authority to entertain the petition. A separate Order ofdismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

Date: August 

# 11 ,2010

2