alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2010221EN.01000502.xml

| 14.8.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 221/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.8.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 221/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 17 June 2010 — Lafarge SA v European Commission, Council of the European Union

(Case C-413/08 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Plasterboard - Distortion of the clear sense of the evidence - Burden of proof - No proper statement of reasons - Regulation No 17 - Article 15(2) - Penalty - Repeated infringement - Stage at which the deterrent effect of the fine is to be taken into account)

2010/C 221/07

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Lafarge SA (represented by: A. Winckler, F. Brunet, E. Paroche, H. Kanellopoulos and C. Medina, avocats)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and N. von Lingen, Agents), Council of the European Union

Other parties to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 8 July 2008 in Case T-54/03 Lafarge SA v Commission rejecting the appellant’s action for the annulment of the Commission’s decision of 27 November 2002, which imposed a fine on the appellant pursuant to Article 81 EC — Cartel fixing prices in the plasterboard sector — Infringement of the obligation to state adequate grounds and the rules governing the burden of proof — Infringement of the principles of equal treatment and proportionality as regards the calculation of the fine — Concept of ‘repeated infringement’

Lafarge SA

Commission

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Lafarge SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Lafarge SA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 327, 20.12.2008.

1

---
<PAGE>

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 Quarterly Report of Allonline.com, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2002, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of the undersigned's
knowledge, 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 results of
                  operations of the Company.



8/19/02                                    /s/ Sahra Partida
---------------                            -------------------------------------
Date                                       President and Chief Financial Officer
#### Jonathan Krantz, Appellant, v Abbey Krantz, Respondent.

— In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Di Noto, J.), dated August 3, 1990, as granted the defendant wife’s cross motion for leave to enter a money judgment in the sum of $14,801.50 for arrears in pendente lite maintenance and child support payments due pursuant to an order of the same court dated January 22, 1990.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by reducing the amount awarded to the defendant for arrears from $14,801.50 to $10,258.99, representing arrears for 26 weeks; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to *866the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for the entry of an appropriate money judgment for arrears in accordance herewith.

Under the facts of this case, the court erred in ordering the husband to pay the wife both child support and the full amount of the carrying charges on the marital residence because this resulted in giving her a double shelter allowance *(see, Lenigan v Lenigan,*159 AD2d 108, 112; *see also, James v James,*169 AD2d 441). Consequently, in a companion appeal we have recalculated the child support allowance by deducting the carrying charges from the plaintiffs gross income before applying the percentage set forth in Domestic Relations Law § 240 (1-b) (b) (3) *(see, Krantz v Krantz,*175 AD2d 863 [decided herewith]). This process yields an annual child support award in the principal sum of $19,217.98 and a weekly award in the principal sum of $369.58 and reduces the plaintiffs arrears in maintenance and child support for the 26-week period in question to the principal sum of $10,258.99.

We find that the plaintiff husband was not entitled to credits against arrears for the voluntary payments he made directly to the wife or to third parties for the wife and the children’s benefit *(see, Horne v Home,*22 NY2d 219, 224; *Fabrizio v Fabrizio,*125 AD2d 634; *Neumark v Neumark,*120 AD2d 502, 503). When the payor spouse has voluntarily made overpayments to the recipient spouse, as arguably he did here, the courts will ordinarily deny credits for the prior overpayments, on the ground that allowing such credits will permit the noncomplying spouse to vary the amount of the payments virtually at will *(see, Stempler v Stempler,*143 AD2d 410, 413; *Rodgers v Rodgers,*98 AD2d 386, 389-390; Annotation, *Child Support*— Right *to Credit,*47 ALR3d 1031, 1055-1056). A court will not credit a "volunteer” with payments against arrears when those payments satisfy the volunteer’s own legal obligations. Several of the husband’s voluntary payments here satisfied his individual contractual obligations to third parties, and cannot be attributed to maintenance or child support *(see, West v West,*151 AD2d 475, 476; *cf, Bara v Bara,*130 AD2d 613; *Reingold v Reingold,*120 AD2d 579, 580; *Yecies v Yecies,*108 AD2d 813). Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>
                                  EXHIBIT 10.4

                        ASSIGNMENT OF MEMBERSHIP INTEREST

BY THIS ASSIGNMENT OF MEMBERSHIP INTEREST ("Assignment") made and entered into
as of the 29th day of December 2000, AMORTIBANC MANAGEMENT L.C., a Texas Limited
Liability Company.,("Assignor"), and 1st Realty Investments, Inc., a Nevada For
Profit Corporation, ("Assignee"), agree as follows:

         1. Assignment. For the amount of $74,579.00 evidenced by a note for
that amount from Assignee in favor of Assignor, together with other necessary
and agreed upon consideration as set forth below, the receipt and sufficiency of
which are hereby acknowledged, Assignor hereby irrevocably sells, transfers and
assigns to Assignee all of its membership interest and participation percentage
in Firebird Financial L.L.C. Assignee hereby accepts the assignment and transfer
of the Assignors' membership interest in Firebird Financial L.L.C., and agrees
to assume any and all obligations and responsibilities associated with such
interest from and after the date of this Assignment and hold Assignors harmless
from any and all liabilities relating thereto.

         2. Further Acts: Additional Documents. Assignors and Assignee shall
perform all such further acts and execute and deliver any and all additional
documents and instruments that may be necessary or desirable to consummate,
evidence or confirm the assignment of the interest described herein.

         3. Counterparts. This Assignment may be executed in counterparts, each
of which shall be deemed to be an original, but all of which together shall
constitute one and the same instrument.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Assignment has been executed as of the day and
year first above written.

                                        "ASSIGNORS"

                                        AMORTIBANC MANAGEMENT, L.C. a Texas
                                        limited liability company


                                        /s/   Edward W. Dietrich
                                              ------------------
                                        Name  Edward W. Dietrich
                                              ------------------
                                        Title Vice President
                                              --------------

                                        "ASSIGNEE"

                                        1st Realty Investments, Inc. a Nevada
                                        For Profit Corporation

                                        /s/   William Szilagyi
                                              ----------------
                                        Name  William Szilagyi
                                              ----------------
                                        Title President
                                              ---------
1

The Honorable Richard E. Dorr, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-2578

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Ramiro R. Urbina, * Western District of Missouri.

*

Appellant. * [UNPUBLISHED]

___________

Submitted: October 31, 2007 

Filed: November 8, 2007

___________

Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Ramiro Urbina challenges the district court’s1

 amended judgment resentencing

him to 360 months in prison and 5 years of supervised release. In a prior decision, we

affirmed Urbina’s conviction, and remanded for resentencing in light of United States

v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). On this appeal, in a brief filed under Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Urbina’s counsel challenges the length of Urbina’s

prison term, and makes a conclusory allegation that Urbina has been the victim of

prosecutorial vindictiveness and selective law enforcement. In his pro se brief, Urbina
-2-

contends that corruption pervaded every aspect of his criminal proceeding, and he

focuses on the injustice of the denial of his motion to suppress.

Following careful review, we conclude that the district court did not impose an

unreasonable sentence. See United States v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1003-04 (8th Cir.

2005). Moreover, the denial of Urbina’s motion to suppress was resolved against him

during his first appeal, and he may not revisit the suppression ruling or any aspect of

his conviction here. See Urbina, 431 F.3d at 309-10; United States v. Walterman, 408

F.3d 1084, 1086 (8th Cir. 2005); United States v. Behler, 187 F.3d 772, 776-77 (8th

Cir. 1999). 

After reviewing the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75

(1988), we have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the

judgment of the district court, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         December 21, 2023.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 12, 2023, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 37 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2024-115, CP2024-120.                

Sean C. Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2023-28052 Filed 12-20-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
Exhibit 23


                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


         As   independent   public   accountants,   we  hereby  consent  to  the
incorporation  of our report  included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K,  into
(i) the Company's  previously  filed  Registration  Statements on Form S-8, File
Nos. 33-37325, 33-39416, 33-48752, 33-48753 and 33-80479, and (ii) the Company's
previously filed Registration Statement on Form S-3, File No. 333-8851.



                                           /s/ ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP
                                           --------------------------
                                           ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP




Washington, D.C.
March 6, 1997
<PAGE>


Exhibit 32

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

         In connection with the Report of Amaru, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-QSB for the for the quarter ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Colin Binny
President (Chief Executive 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:

                  (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/ Colin Binny
-------------------------------------
Colin Binny
President (Chief Executive Officer)
August 17, 2004
##### 



CRAFTMADE INTERNATIONAL, INC. AND ITS SUBSIDIARIES
EXHIBIT 21 The following schedule lists the subsidiaries of Craftmade International, Inc.,
a Delaware corporation, as of June 30, 2004: Corporate Name
    
    State of OrganizationDurocraft International, Inc.
    
    TexasC/D/R Incorporated
    
    DelawareTrade Source International, Inc. (TSI)
    
    DelawareTSI Prime Asia Limited
    
    Hong KongElitex Development Limited
    
    Hong KongPrime/Home Impressions, LLC
(in which TSI owns a 50% interest)
    
    North CarolinaDesign Trends, LLC
(in which Craftmade owns a 50% interest)
    
    Delaware
# C_2008008EN.01002201.xml

| 12.1.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 8/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 8/22

---

Action brought on 8 November 2007 — CMB and Christof v Commission and EAR

(Case T-407/07)

(2008/C 8/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: CMB Maschinenbau & Handels GmbH (Gratkorn, Austria) and J. Christof GmbH (Graz, Austria) (represented by: A. Petsche, N. Niejahr and Q. Azau, lawyers, and F. Young, Solicitor)

Applicants:

Defendants: Commission of the European Communities and European Agency for Reconstruction

Defendants:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision;

| — | order the EAR to produce certain documents; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the EAR to produce certain documents;

| — | order the EAR to pay damages in respect of the loss suffered by the applicants in the amounts of EUR 26 862,17 and EUR 3 197 968,80 for costs and lost profit, plus compensatory interest from the date on which the damage materialised; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the EAR to pay damages in respect of the loss suffered by the applicants in the amounts of EUR 26 862,17 and EUR 3 197 968,80 for costs and lost profit, plus compensatory interest from the date on which the damage materialised;

| — | order the EAR to pay interest on the damages from the date of judgment; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the EAR to pay interest on the damages from the date of judgment;

| — | order the EAR and the Commission to pay their own costs and the applicants' costs in connection with these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the EAR and the Commission to pay their own costs and the applicants' costs in connection with these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants contest the European Agency for Reconstruction's decision of 29 August 2007 confirming the rejection of the applicants' bid and the award of the contract to another tenderer relating to the tender notice EuropeAid/124192/D/SUP/YU (OJ 2006/S 233-248823) for the supply, delivery, installation, after-sales service and training in the use of supplies for treatment and transport of medical waste throughout the Republic of Serbia (excluding Kosovo). The applicants further request compensation for the alleged damages caused by the decision.

In support of their application, the applicants submit that the contracting authority violated the award criteria for the tender, as the offer of the successful tenderer did not meet the technical specifications.

Furthermore, the applicants allege that the contracting authority violated the applicable procurement procedure, that it did not state reasons and that it breached the principle of sound administration.

---
Section 9 

Certification that Public Hearing was held after 

Proper Public Notice 

See Attachments : 

+ Arizona Republic Notices (Sections 7&8) 

+ GRIN Public Notices (Section 7&8) 

+ List of Attendees 

+ Transcripts of Hearings 

+ Comments and Responses (Section 10)
## In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 14

- 00213

- CR

MARVIN FRANK HALL, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 8th District Court Hopkins County, Texas Trial Court No. 0216557

Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss2 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Marvin Frank Hall filed a pro s e notice of appeal December 3, 2014, attempting to appeal the trial court’s “Order Denying Defendant’s Motion For Time Cut.” We received and reviewed the clerk’s record in this matter, which indicated that the judgment adjudicating Hall’s guilt in

trial c ourt cause number 0216557 was filed August 26, 2004, and sentence was imposed in this matter on that same date. On December 5, 2014, we notified Hall by letter of a possible defect in this Court’s jurisdiction over his appeal; specifically, we informed Ha ll that there was no appealable judgment or order in the record and that, in the absence of such, we lacked jurisdiction over the appeal. Providing Hall a reasonable opportunity to cure this defect, we afforded him fifteen days from the date of the letter to show this Court how it had jurisdiction. On December 29, 2014, we received a document from Hall captioned, “In the Direct Appeal of Marvin Frank Hall Seeking Relief From Final Felony Conviction,” in which Hall claimed this Court has jurisdiction over his appeal because the issues he raises are purportedly jurisdictional. Hall further claimed that this Court has jurisdiction over his appeal because he is permitted to raise the issue of whether or not his plea was voluntary.

To the extent that Hall s eeks to directly appeal the judgment rendered against him

A ugust 26, 2004, his appeal is untimely. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 26.2(a)(1). Under Rule 26.2(a)(1)

of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, the deadline for filing a direct appeal from that judgment expired long ago. See id. To the extent that Hall seeks to appeal from the trial court’s order denying his

December 3, 2014, motion seeking some form of time credit on his pr ison sentence or a3 reduction in that sentence, we find that such order is not one from which the Texas Legislature has authorized an appeal. In the State of Texas, a party may only appeal when the Texas Legislature has authorized an appeal. Galitz v. Sta te , 617 S.W.2d 949, 951 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981). When the Legislature passes legislation granting a right of appeal, in addition to granting its citizens that substantive right, it also grants the appellate courts of this State jurisdiction to hear such ap peals. In the absence of such authorizing legislation, appellate courts are without jurisdiction and have no authority to act. See id. Because the time to file a direct appeal in this matter has long since passed and because

the record does not otherwis e include any appealable order, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Josh R. Morriss, III Chief Justice

Date Submitted: January 7, 2015 Date Decided: January 8, 2015

Do Not Publish
# C_2021431EN.01002401.xml

| 25.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 431/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 431/24

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 2 September 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil du contentieux des étrangers — Belgium) — X v Belgian State

(Case C-930/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2004/38/EC - Article 13(2) - Right of residence of family members of a Union citizen - Marriage between a Union citizen and a third-country national - Retention, in the event of divorce, of the right of residence by a third-country national who is the victim of acts of domestic violence committed by his or her spouse - Requirement to demonstrate the existence of sufficient resources - No such requirement in Directive 2003/86/EC - Validity - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Articles 20 and 21 - Equal treatment - Difference in treatment based on whether the sponsor is a Union citizen or a third-country national - Non-comparability of situations)

(2021/C 431/25)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil du contentieux des étrangers

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: X

Defendant: Belgian State

Operative part of the judgment

The consideration of the question referred by the national court has disclosed no factor of a kind such as to affect the validity of Article 13(2) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC, in the light of Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ C 77, 9.3.2020.

---