alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2009167EN.01000201.xml

| 18.7.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 167/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.7.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 167/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 20 May 2009 — Philippe Guigard v Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-214/08 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Action for damages - Conditions for the Community to incur contractual and non-contractual liability - Articles 313(2)(k), 314 and 317(a) of the Fourth Lomé Convention, as revised by the Mauritius Agreement)

2009/C 167/02

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Philippe Guigard (represented by: S. Rodrigues and C. Bernard-Glanz)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Bordes and F. Dintilhac, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 11 March 2008 in Case T-301/05 Guigard v Commission, by which the Court of First Instance dismissed the applicant’s action for damages for the loss which he allegedly suffered by reason of the Commission’s conduct with regard to the non-renewal of his contract of employment concluded in the framework of technical co-operation between the Community and the Republic of Niger financed by the European Development Fund — Conditions for the Community to incur non-contractual liability — Infringement of Articles 313(2)(k) and 314 of the Fourth Lomé Convention (OJ 1991 L 229), as revised by the Mauritius Agreement (OJ 1998 L 156, p. 3) — Infringement of the obligation to state reasons and of the rights of the defence.

Guigard

Commission

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-301/05 Guigard v Commission inasmuch as it declared Mr Guigard’s action to be admissible; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-301/05 Guigard v Commission inasmuch as it declared Mr Guigard’s action to be admissible;

| 2. | Dismisses Mr Guigard’s action in Case T-301/05; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses Mr Guigard’s action in Case T-301/05;

| 3. | Declares that it is not necessary to rule on the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Declares that it is not necessary to rule on the appeal;

| 4. | Orders Mr Guigard to pay the costs incurred by the Commission of the European Communities before the Court of Justice of the European Communities and before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders Mr Guigard to pay the costs incurred by the Commission of the European Communities before the Court of Justice of the European Communities and before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities.

---

(1)  OJ C 223, 30.08.2008.

1

---
Francis Lienhard                                              ROYAL BANK
Senior Account Manager                                        [ICON](REGISTERED)

                                                      Royal Bank of Canada
                                                      Corporate Banking - Quebec
                                                      8th Floor, West Wing
                                                      1 Place Ville Marie
                                                      Montreal, Quebec  H3C3A9

                                                      Tel:  (514) 874-2811
December 14, 1999                                     Fax:  (514) 874-5315



Mr. Lawrence J. Hineline
Vice President - Finance
NORTH AMERICAN VACCINE INC.
10150 Old Columbia Road
Columbia, MD 21046-2358

Subject:  US$6,000,000 Credit Facilities - July 12, 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------

Dear Larry:

Pursuant to your request, we hereby confirm that we agree to extend the above
Credit Facilities up to May 31, 2000 subject the following amendments:

     o  For clarity, the loan financing of US$30,000,000 received from Baxter
        International Inc. shall not be included in the definition of Mandatory
        Repayment.

     o  Extension Fee of US$12,500 payable upon acceptance of this extension.

All other terms and conditions of the Credit Facilities remain applicable.

Please confirm acceptance of this extension of the Credit Facilities by signing
and returning copy of this letter.


Yours truly,


/s/ F. Lienhard
FL/ed

Read and accepted on this 20 day of December 1999.

NORTH AMERICAN VACCINE INC.

By:         /s/ Lawrence J. Hineline         By:       /s/ Randal Chase
            --------------------------                 ---------------------
Name:       Lawrence J. Hineline             Name:     Randal Chase
            --------------------------                 ---------------------
Title:      Vice President, Finance          Title:    President & CEO
            --------------------------                 ---------------------

Acknowledged on this 22nd day of December 1999.

BIOCHEM PHARMA INC.

By:         /s/ F. Andrew                    By:       /s/ C. Tessier
            --------------------------                 ---------------------
Name:       F. Andrew                        Name:     C. Tessier
            --------------------------                 ---------------------
Title:      Chief Financial Officer          Title:    Vice President, Legal
            --------------------------                 ---------------------

BIOCHEM PHARMA HOLDINGS INC.

By:         /s/ F. Andrew                    By:       /s/ Guy Lord
            --------------------------                 ---------------------
Name:       F. Andrew                        Name:     Guy Lord
            --------------------------                 ---------------------
Title:      Treasurer                        Title:    Secretary
            --------------------------                 ---------------------
<PAGE>   1




                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

                   SUBSIDIARIES OF AMERICAN HEALTHCHOICE, INC.


1.   AHC Chiropractic Clinics, Inc., a Texas corporation

2.   AHC Physicians Corporation, Inc., a Texas corporation

3.   Total Medical Diagnostics, Inc., a Delaware corporation

4.   Nationwide Sports and Injury, Inc., a Texas corporation

5.   United Chiropractic Clinics of Uptown, Inc., a Louisiana corporation

6.   New Orleans East Chiropractic Clinics, Inc., a Louisiana corporation

7.   AHC Clinic Management, L.L.C., a Texas limited liability company

8.   AHI Management, Inc., a Texas corporation

9.   Diagnostic Services, Inc., a Texas corporation

10.  Katy Sports Injury and Rehab, Incorporated, a Texas corporation

11.  Pacific Chiropractic (San Pedro), Incorporated, d/b/a United Chiropractic
     Clinic, a Texas corporation

12.  Apple Chiropractic Clinic of Wurzbach, Incorporated, a Texas corporation

13.  Valley Family Health Center, L.L.C., a Texas limited liability company
# Materials Not Included in **Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket**

Docket Number: FAA- 2012 - 0495 Directorate Identifier: 2011NM236AD 200 -32 -389 --- 10/20/11 MOL G200 - MOL - 11 - 0014 --- 11/4/11

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the Supplemental AD Docket 

### MA **Y BE VIEWED AT:** Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate Rules Docket 1601 Lind Ave. SW., Renton, WA 98057 425.227.1221 **DURING THE HOURS OF:** 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Form Date: 03/05/2008
# C_2011063EN.01000202.xml

| 26.2.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.2.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 December 2010 — European Commission v Slovak Republic

(Case C-507/08) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - State aid - Partial write-off of a company’s tax liability as part of an arrangement with creditors - Commission decision declaring that aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery - Failure to execute)

2011/C 63/03

Language of the case: Slovak

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: C. Giolito, J. Javorský and K. Walkerová, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Slovak Republic (represented by: B Ricziová, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Commission Decision 2007/254/EC of 7 June 2006 [notified under number C(2006) 2082], which found that aid granted by the Slovak Republic in favour of Frucona Košice in the form of a write-off of a tax debt by the tax office under an arrangement with creditors was incompatible with the common market and ordered its recovery (State Aid No C-25/2005 (ex NN 21/2005) (OJ 2007 L 112, p. 14).

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to take within the prescribed period all the measures necessary to recover from the beneficiary the aid referred to in Commission Decision 2007/254/EC of 7 June 2006 on State aid C 25/2005 (ex NN 21/2005) implemented by the Slovak Republic for Frucona Košice a.s., the Slovak Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the fourth paragraph of Article 249 EC and Article 2 of that decision; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to take within the prescribed period all the measures necessary to recover from the beneficiary the aid referred to in Commission Decision 2007/254/EC of 7 June 2006 on State aid C 25/2005 (ex NN 21/2005) implemented by the Slovak Republic for Frucona Košice a.s., the Slovak Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the fourth paragraph of Article 249 EC and Article 2 of that decision;

| 2. | Orders the Slovak Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Slovak Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 102, 01.05.2009.

1

---
Exhibit 99.2

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 Williams Controls, Inc (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended September 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Dennis E. Bunday, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:





|/s/DENNIS E. BUNDAYDennis E. Bunday
Chief Financial Officer
Williams Controls, Inc
December 20, 2002 |  | 
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 

---

QuickLinks
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER OF ABATEMENT 

Appellate case name: In re William H. Atwell, II

Appellate case number: 01-18-01066-CV

Trial court case number: 463026

Trial court: Probate Court No. 3 of Harris County

Relator, William H. Atwell, II, filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking to vacate the 

Honorable Rory Olsen’s September 5, 2018 order denying relator’s Motion to Transfer Venue as 

well as relator’s Supplement to Motion to Transfer Venue and Motion for Entry of Ruling. 

Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 7.2(b), the Court “must abate the [original] 

proceeding to allow the successor to reconsider the original party’s decision.” TEX. R. APP. P.

7.2(b). 

The proceeding is ABATED and REMANDED to the trial court. Within 15 days of the 

date of this order, relator is directed to obtain a hearing date, if necessary, from the trial court 

coordinator and to notify all parties of such date. The hearing shall be set for a date no later than 

30 days after the date of this order. The trial court coordinator shall advise the Clerk of this Court 

of the hearing date as soon as it is set.

Within 40 days of the date of this order, the district clerk shall file a supplemental clerk’s 

record and reporter’s record, if any, with the ruling by the successor, the Honorable Jason Cox.

This case is abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from this Court’s active docket. 

This original proceeding will be reinstated on this Court’s active docket when the successor 

respondent has reconsidered the original respondent’s decision and either party informs the Clerk 

of this Court of the ruling with a certified copy of the order. This Court will also consider a motion 

to reinstate by either party.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: ___/s/ Justice Peter Kelly___________________

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: ___January 7, 2019_____
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSBof Advanced Cell Technology, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended September 30,2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, William M. Caldwell, IV, Chief Executive Officer of theCompany, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)          The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 
| Dated: November 14, 2005 |   |   | /s/ William M. Caldwell, IV |
|--------------------------|--------|--------|-----------------------------|
|                     |   |   | William M. Caldwell, IV     |
|                     |   |   | Chief Executive Officer     |

 

1

----
#### In the Matter of Edwin Velez, Appellant, v New York City Transit Authority et al., Respondents.

— In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of prohibition to prohibit the respondents from implementing a decision to suspend the petitioner from duty as a police officer with the New York City Transit Police Department, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), dated February 28, 1989, which dismissed the proceeding.

*133Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The petitioner is a police officer employed with the respondent New York City Transit Police Department. On or about March 18, 1986, disciplinary charges were preferred against him concerning misconduct and/or incompetence allegedly occurring on September 2, 1983, February 9, 1984 and March 21, 1984. Following a fact-finding hearing which found that the charges relating to the February 9, 1984, and March 21, 1984, occurrences were proven, the petitioner was suspended from duty for 30 days.

On appeal the petitioner contends that the charges preferred against him were time-barred by virtue of the 18-month limitation provision of Civil Service Law §75 (4), and therefore the Hearing Officer lacked authority to adjudicate upon the charges and thereafter to suspend him.

We disagree. The 18-month limitation period of Civil Service Law § 75 (4) is inapplicable where the incompetence or misconduct complained of and described in the charges would constitute a crime if proved in a court of competent jurisdiction. We are satisfied that the allegations of fact specified in the charges in issue would, if proved, constitute the crime of petit larceny, i.e., obtaining money by false pretenses *(see,*Penal Law § 155.25; *see also, People v Drake,*61 NY2d 359, 362).

We have examined the appellant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J. P. Kunzeman, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur.
From: Muldoon, Albert (OST)

To: "lplacek@cityofalliance.net"; "jdcox@cityofalliance.net"; "kfischer@chadron-nebraska.com"; Wayne Anderson

(manager@chadron-nebraska.com); "pfisher@chadron-nebraska.com"

Cc: Shawn Simpson <shawn@boutiqueair.com> (shawn@boutiqueair.com); "david.schroeder@gemairflights.com";

"Mike Matthews"; Doug Voss; Chuck Howell; "Kelly Carbone"; Schlemmer, Kevin (OST)

Subject: EAS at Alliance & Chadron, NE - Request for Comments - Due February 18, 2015

Date: Thursday, January 15, 2015 9:48:08 AM

Attachments: AIA-CDR Bid 2015 Great Lakes 1 14 15.pdf

AIACDRBid.pdf

Gem Air, LLC EAS Proposal Alliance, NE and Chadron, NE.pdf

Via Air - Alliance Chadron Proposal.pdf

All:

I would like to update you on the Essential Air Service (EAS) situation at Alliance and

Chadron, Nebraska, and give you an opportunity to submit comments on the record before

we submit a recommendation to the Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International

Affairs.  In anticipation of the current contract’s expiration on May 31, 2015, the

Department issued Order 2014-11-10 (November 12, 2014) soliciting proposals from carriers

to provide EAS at Alliance and/or Chadron, NE, for a new contract period beginning June 1,

2015.  In response to that Order, we received proposals from four carriers:

Great Lakes (the incumbent)

ViaAir

Gem Air

Boutique Air

I have attached a copy of each of the proposals to this email for your review.  The proposals

will also soon be available online through the Federal Dockets Management System at

www.regulations.gov by entering “DOT-OST-2000-8322” in the search box. 

Please carefully review the proposals and submit any comments you may have as soon as

possible, but no later than February 18, 2015.  Please send your comments via email to

EAS@dot.gov.  Feel free to contact me if you have any questions and please forward this

email to any relevant parties not included on this email. 

Regards,

A.J.

A.J. Muldoon

Office of Aviation Analysis

U.S. Department of Transportation

albert.muldoon@dot.gov

(202) 366-1058
#### State v. Tetu

23709

08/27/2002

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**

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Advanced CellTechnology, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended June 30, 2005as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, James G. Stewart, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

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

 

(2)          The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| Dated: August 15,  2005 |   |   | /s/ James G. Stewart    |
|------------------------------|--------|--------|-------------------------|
|                         |   |   | James G. Stewart        |
|                         |   |   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
EXHIBIT 32.1


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, John R. Coghlan, President, and Chief Executive Officer of Temporary
Financial Services, Inc. (the "Company") do hereby certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

This Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the fiscal quarter ended
June 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
"report"), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

The information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



Date: August 8, 2005

/s/ John R. Coghlan
--------------------------------------
John R. Coghlan
President and Chief Executive Officer
# C_2009153EN.01001603.xml

| 4.7.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 153/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.7.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 153/16

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 14 May 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-390/08) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Environment - Decision No 280/2004/EC - Implementation of the Kyoto Protocol - National measures intended to limit and/or reduce greenhouse gas emissions - Failure to communicate the information required)

2009/C 153/32

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: U. Wölker and J.-P. Keppenne, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: C. Schiltz, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to communicate, within the prescribed time-limit, the information required by Article 3(2) of Decision No 280/2004/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 concerning a mechanism for monitoring Community greenhouse gas emissions and for implementing the Kyoto Protocol (OJ 2004 L 49, p. 1), read in conjunction with Articles 8 to 11 of Commission Decision No 2005/166/EC of 10 February 2005 laying down rules implementing Decision No 280/2004/EC (OJ 2005 L 55, p. 57) — Information relating to national projections concerning greenhouse gas emissions and measures adopted to limit and/or reduce such emissions

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to communicate the information required by 15 March 2007 under Article 3(2) of Decision No 280/2004/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 concerning a mechanism for monitoring Community greenhouse gas emissions and for implementing the Kyoto Protocol, read in conjunction with Articles 8 to 11 of Commission Decision No 2005/166/EC of 10 February 2005 laying down rules implementing Decision No 280/2004/EC, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg failed to fulfil its obligations under those provisions; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to communicate the information required by 15 March 2007 under Article 3(2) of Decision No 280/2004/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 concerning a mechanism for monitoring Community greenhouse gas emissions and for implementing the Kyoto Protocol, read in conjunction with Articles 8 to 11 of Commission Decision No 2005/166/EC of 10 February 2005 laying down rules implementing Decision No 280/2004/EC, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg failed to fulfil its obligations under those provisions;

| 2. | Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 285 of 8.11.2008.

1

---