alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2008116EN.01002202.xml

| 9.5.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 116/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.5.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 116/22

---

Action brought on 18 February 2008 — Dow Chemical v Commission

(Case T-77/08)

(2008/C 116/41)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: The Dow Chemical Company (Midland, United States) (represented by: D. Schroeder and T. Graf, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision insofar as it relates to the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision insofar as it relates to the applicant;

| — | in the alternative, substantially reduce its fine; and |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, substantially reduce its fine; and

| — | order the Commission to pay the applicant's legal and other costs and expenses in relation to this matter. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the applicant's legal and other costs and expenses in relation to this matter.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant seeks partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 5910 final of 5 December 2007 (Case COMP/F/38.629 — Chloroprene Rubber), by which the Commission found that the applicant, together with other undertakings, had infringed Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area by participating in a single and continuing agreement and/or concerted practice in the chloroprene rubber sector.

In support of its application, the applicant submits that the Commission committed manifest errors of assessment of the facts and erred in law in holding the applicant liable for the infringement of the joint venture DuPont Dow Elastomers. According to the applicant, the Commission failed to establish that the applicant had a decisive influence over DuPont Dow Elastomers. Furthermore, the applicant contends that it did not form a single economic unit with DuPont Dow Elastomers.

Moreover, the applicant alleges that the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment of the facts, erred in law and failed to provide adequate reasoning for its decision:

| — | in using a multiplier for duration of 6.5 even though the duration of the infringement was only six years and one month; |
| --- | --- |

—

in using a multiplier for duration of 6.5 even though the duration of the infringement was only six years and one month;

| — | in increasing the fine to be imposed on the applicant by 10 % for sufficient deterrent effect; and |
| --- | --- |

—

in increasing the fine to be imposed on the applicant by 10 % for sufficient deterrent effect; and

| — | in not granting the applicant the maximum available leniency reduction of 30 %. |
| --- | --- |

—

in not granting the applicant the maximum available leniency reduction of 30 %.

---
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 Medical Connections Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:





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





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





3.  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.









Date:  August 11, 2010
By:
/s/ Jeffrey RosenfeldJeffrey RosenfeldChief Executive Officer
Amendment to Administrative Services Agreement, dated March 17, 2005



 EXHIBIT 10.4(b) 
  
 AMENDMENT TO 
  
 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES AGREEMENT 
  
 THIS AMENDMENT TO ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”) is made and entered into as of March 17 ,2005, between AF
Services, LLC (“AF Services”), a Delaware limited liability company and successor in interest to AF Services, Inc. a Delaware corporation, and eCOST.com, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“eCost”). 
  
 RECITALS 
  
 WHEREAS, the AF Services and eCost entered into that certain Administrative Services Agreement on September 1, 2004
(the “Agreement”); and 
  
 WHEREAS, the parties
hereto desire to amend the Agreement as provided herein. 
  
 AGREEMENT 
  
 NOW, THEREFORE, in
consideration of the foregoing and the mutual promises and covenants contained in this Amendment, the parties hereto agree as follows: 
  
 1. Effective on the date of the distribution by PC Mall, Inc. of all of the shares of Common Stock of eCost owned by PC Mall, Inc. to its stockholders
(the “Distribution Date”), “Exhibit A” of the Agreement is deleted in its entirety and replaced with Exhibit A attached to this Amendment. 
  

2. Effective on the Distribution Date, Section 2.1 of the Agreement is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows: 
  
 “In consideration of AF Services’ performance of the Services,
eCost shall pay AF Services a monthly fee in the amount of Nineteen Thousand Dollars ($19,000.00) (the “Monthly Fee”). In the event that eCost terminates any Services in accordance with Section 3.2 (b) below, the parties will in good faith
negotiate and agree to an appropriate adjustment to the Monthly Fee.” 
  
 3. Except to the extent specifically modified herein, the Agreement remains in full force and effect. 
  
 4. This Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts, all of which shall be considered one and the same agreement and shall become effective when
one or more counterparts have been signed by each of the parties and delivered to each of the other parties, it being understood that all parties need not sign the same counterpart. 
  
 5. Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Agreement. 
  

 1 








 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment as of the date and year first above
written. 
  

					
	AF SERVICES, LLC
		
	 By:
	 	/s/    BRANDON
LAVERNE        
	 	 	 Name:
	 	Brandon LaVerne
	 	 	 Title:
	 	Manager
	
	eCOST.COM, INC.
		
	 By:
	 	/s/    ADAM W.
SHAFFER        
	 	 	 Name:
	 	Adam W. Shaffer
	 	 	 Title:
	 	Chief Executive Officer

  

 2 








 Exhibit A 
  
 AF Services shall provide eCost payroll administration, human resources administration, product information management, tax returns
preparation and catalog advertising production services, and accounting and finance services necessary to permit eCost to prepare financial statements as of and for the periods ending prior to and through the Distribution Date, in each case on a
basis consistent with past practices. 
  

 3
Summary of Executive Bonus Plan




 EXHIBIT 10.68 
  
 Summary of Executive Bonus Plan 
  
 On February 9, 2005, the Compensation Committee of our Board of Directors adopted an executive bonus plan
effective beginning January 1, 2005. Under this executive bonus plan, for each fiscal quarter our eligible executive officers may participate in a bonus pool equaling an aggregate of up to ten percent of any amount by which our adjusted income for
the relevant quarter exceeds our adjusted income for the same quarter of the prior year. For the purposes of the executive bonus plan, “adjusted income” is our aggregate pretax income for the quarter for our core business segment (i.e.,
excluding our eCOST.com and OnSale.com segments), less certain costs that will be determined on a quarterly basis by the Compensation Committee in its sole discretion. The Compensation Committee will allocate amounts to eligible participants based
on factors identified by the Compensation Committee, including the achievement of specified individual performance targets. Currently, our Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Executive Vice President—Marketing and Executive Vice
President—Enterprise Sales are eligible to participate in this executive bonus plan.
Exhibit 13.2

906 CERTIFICATION

Securities and Exchange Commission

100 F Street, N.E.

Washington, D.C. 20549

Ladies and Gentlemen:

In connection with the Annual Report of Sinopec Shanghai Petrochemical Company Limited (the Company) on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2015, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Ye Guohua, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best
of my knowledge:



| | 1. | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) , as applicable, 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 at the dates and for
the periods indicated.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Date: April 27, 2016



By:

/s/ Ye GuohuaName:

Ye GuohuaTitle:

Chief Financial Officer
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
EDDIE PAREDES-PER E Z, Pe titione r,
v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 13-71408 Age n c y No. A071-813-458
M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Argue d a nd Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 9, 2016 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : THOM AS, C hie f Judge and SC HR OEDER and NGUYEN, C irc uit Judge s. Pe titione r Eddie Pare de s-Pe re z , a native and c i tiz e n of Gua te m a la , pe titions for re vie w of the de c ision of theB o ard of Im m igration Appe a ls (“ B IA” ) de ny ing Pare de s-Pe re z ’ s m otion to re ope n his 1992 re m o va l proc e e dings. TheB IA de nie d the m otion a s untim e l y . The m otion wa s file d y e ars a fte r the e xpira tion of the90- da y filing pe riod, a

nd pe titione r doe s not c o nte nd tha t a ny of the e xc e ptions to tha t 

# FIL ED FEB 22 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S

. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.lim ita

tion a pply
. Se e 8 U.S.C . § 1229a (c )(7)(C )(i); 8 C .F.R
. §§ 1003.2(c )(2)–(3), 1003.23(b)(4). Pare de s -Pe re z c onte nds tha t the unde rly ing c rim i na l c o nvic tion on whic h the de porta tion wa s ba se d is now unsound be c a use the c o nvic tion ha s be e n e xpunge d unde r C a lifornia ’ s sta

te re ha bilita tive proc e dure s, a

nd a lso, be c a

use a 2007 de c ision of this c ourt inva lida te d the c onvic tion. Se e Pare de s-Pe re z v . K e isle r , 252 F. App’ x 132 (9th C ir. 2007). Ne ithe r c onte ntion ha s m e rit. Pe titione r ha s ne ve r shown tha t the e xpunge m e nt vitia

te d the im m igration
c onse q ue nc e s of the c onvic tion within the m e an ing of Lujan-Arme ndariz v . IN S , 222 F.3d 728, 749–50 (9th C i r. 2000), o v e rrule d in part by N une z-Re y e s v . Holde r , 646 F.3d 684 (9th C ir. 2011). This c ourt’ s 2007 de c ision he ld only that in a subse q ue nt re m ova l proc e e ding, thea ge nc y ha d not re lie d on a

ppropria te doc um e ntation to e sta

blish thec onvic tion. It did not vitia te the c onvic tion itse lf. Pe titione r ha s not provide d a ny pla usible justific at ion e ithe r for re ope ning, or for his de la y . The B IA c orre c t ly

rule d tha t the m o tion to re ope n wa s untim e ly
. Pe tition for re vie w is DE NIE D
.

2
LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES


        Name                        State Of Incorporation   Trade Names


Kenneth O. Lester Company, Inc.           Tennessee

Caro Produce & Institutional
Foods, Inc.                               Louisiana

        KMB Produce, Inc.                 Texas              KMB Produce

                                                              Fresh Advantage

                                                              Prime Source

        Southland Distribution
        System, Inc.                      Louisiana


Hale Brothers/Summit, Inc.                 Tennessee          Hale Brothers

Pocahontas Foods, USA, Inc.                Virginia           Pocahontas USA

      	T & S Transportation of
        Richmond, Inc.                     Virginia           T & S
                                                              Transportation

Milton's Foodservice, Inc.                 Georgia
**Exhibit 23.1**

**MOORE STEPHENS**

**ELLIS FOSTER LTD.**
| CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS |
|-----------------------|

 

1650 West 1st Avenue
| Vancouver, BC  Canada | V6J 1G1 |  
Telephone:  (604) 734-1112  Facsimile: (604) 714-5916

www.ellisfoster.com

 

 

 

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We consent to the use of our report dated March 18, 2005 with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Cheetah Oil & Gas Ltd. as at December 31, 2004 and January 31, 2004 and the related consolidated statements of stockholders' equity, operations and cash flows for the period from January 28, 2003 (inception) to January 31, 2004, for the period from February 1, 2004 to December 31, 2004 and for the cumulative period from January 28, 2003 (inception) to December 31, 2004.  We further consent to the reference to our firm under the heading "Experts" in the 10KSB.

 

 

 

*“MOORE STEPHENS ELLIS FOSTER LTD.”*

 

Vancouver, British Columbia

Chartered Accountants

Canada

April 7, 2005

 

 

**MSEF***A partnership of incorporated professionals*

*An independently owned and operated member of Moore Stephens North America Inc., a member of Moore Stephens International Limited*

*- members in principal cities throughout the world*

 
 

 

 

  |
|-----------------------|---------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 121 (Tuesday, September 11, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6101-S6102]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                        TRIBUTE TO ROSAIRE LONGE

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, it is an honor to recognize Rosaire Longe, 
a

[[Page S6102]]

man who has dedicated much of his life to civil service. Whether 
fighting fires, serving the city of Burlington, VT, as city assessor, 
representing his district in the Vermont State Legislature, or 
maintaining order in the courtroom as a court officer, Mr. Longe has 
continually served the people and State of Vermont.
  A native of New York, Mr. Longe spent most of his childhood years in 
Vermont. After graduating from Burlington High School in 1958, Mr. 
Longe worked as a firefighter for the Burlington Fire Department, a 
profession he continued for 10 years. Mr. Longe went back to school at 
Champlain College, where he received his associate's degree in 
accounting in 1979. Before beginning his career as a court officer, Mr. 
Longe worked as the Burlington City Assessor and served as a state 
representative for one term in the Vermont Legislature. For the past 20 
years, Mr. Longe has ensured the smooth running of the Vermont Superior 
Court in Burlington as a court officer. His ready smile and easy 
manners have helped jurors, witnesses and judges alike feel assured in 
the courtroom. Outside of work, Mr. Longe served as a Justice of the 
Peace for over 30 years, and in that capacity, he has presided over the 
marriage of over 2,000 couples.
  These professional accomplishments aside, Mr. Longe has touched the 
lives of many Vermonters. Friends and co-workers have described him as 
``one of the best men'' they know. Whether he is leading people in and 
out of the courthouse, officiating a neighbor's wedding, or merely 
encouraging those around him with a smile and a laugh, Mr. Longe has 
proven himself to be the epitome of a true Vermonter. Marcelle and I 
have known Rosaire and his wife, Irene, for decades, and share 
Vermonters admiration for him. In light of his character and history as 
a public servant, Rosaire deserves recognition for a full lifetime of 
civil service and contribution to his community and State.

                          ____________________
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Erasmo Mezon, Respondent.

— Appeal by the People from an order of the County Court, Westchester County (Silverman, J.), dated June 4, 1991, which, after a hearing, granted the defendant’s oral application to suppress physical evidence. The notice of appeal from the decision dated January 5, 1990, is treated as a premature notice of appeal from the order.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, the defendant’s application to suppress physical evidence is denied, and the matter is remitted to the County Court, Westchester County, for further proceedings consistent herewith.

We do not agree with the defendant’s contention that the People are not entitled to pursue the instant appeal. Since the *220People have filed the requisite statement under CPL 450.50, the People may appeal the court’s suppression ruling as a matter of right *(see,*CPL 450.20 [8]; *see also, People v Kates,*53 NY2d 591, 596-597).

As the defendant concedes in his brief, the court erred in entertaining defense counsel’s oral application, made at the time of arraignment, to suppress the physical evidence recovered during a search of the defendant. The first sentence of CPL 710.60 (1) is quite explicit: "A motion to suppress evidence made before trial must be in writing and upon reasonable notice to the people and with opportunity to be heard.” Accordingly, the court’s ruling is reversible upon this procedural ground.

In any event, the court’s ruling was also erroneous on the merits. The evidence adduced at the hearing shows that the arrest and subsequent search of the defendant were lawful and proper *(see, People v Ellis,*62 NY2d 393; *People v Copeland,*39 NY2d 986; *People v Spencer,*130 AD2d 882; *People v Rodriguez,*122 AD2d 895). Thompson, J. P., Eiber, Balletta and Ritter, JJ., concur. *[See,*146 Misc 2d 196.]
#### Walter Hayden, an Infant by Ruth Hayden, His Guardian ad Litem, et al., Respondents, *v.*Board of Education of the City of New York, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

June 11, 1959.

*959
      *Charles H. Tenney, Corporation Counsel (Seymour B. Quel*and *John A. Murray*of counsel), for appellant.

*Walsh, Aarons, SalongerFS Fleishaker (Morris Aarons*and *Morton L. Gitter*of counsel), for respondents.

*Per Curiam.*

The court erred in treating the infant’s statement of the accident as a timely served notice of claim. There is no authority under subdivision 3 of section 50-e of the General Municipal Law to permit amendment as to the manner of service of the claim in the absence of a Comptroller’s hearing in regard thereto.

The judgment should be reversed, with costs, and judgment directed for defendant and complaint dismissed, with costs.

Concur — Stetjer, J. P., Hofstadter and Aurelio, JJ.

Judgment reversed, etc.
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 Alliance Bancshares California (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30,
2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Curtis S. Reis, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, 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 results of operations of the Company.



/s/    CURTIS S. REISPresident and Chief Executive Officer




Date: November 12, 2003
**Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 May 2009 – Commission v Sweden**

**(Case C‐322/08)**

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2004/83/EC – Failure to transpose within the prescribed period

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Examination of the merits by the Court – Situation to be taken into consideration – Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 11)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted (OJ 2004 L 304, p. 12). |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted, the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs. |