alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2008064EN.01007001.xml

| 8.3.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 64/70 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.3.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 64/70

---

Action brought on 18 January 2008 — Rosenbaum v Commission

(Case F-9/08)

(2008/C 64/115)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Eckehard Rosenbaum (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: H.-J. Rüber, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

The subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the defendant's decision to classify the applicant in Grade AD 6/2 at the time of recruitment.

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Appointing Authority of the European Commission of 13 February 2007 concerning the applicant's classification in Grade AD 6/2; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Appointing Authority of the European Commission of 13 February 2007 concerning the applicant's classification in Grade AD 6/2;

| — | Declare that the recruitment must be made in Grade AD 9; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that the recruitment must be made in Grade AD 9;

| — | In the alternative, declare that the recruitment must be made in Grade AD 8; |
| --- | --- |

—

In the alternative, declare that the recruitment must be made in Grade AD 8;

| — | In the further alternative, declare that the recruitment must be made in Grade AD 8; |
| --- | --- |

—

In the further alternative, declare that the recruitment must be made in Grade AD 8;

| — | Order the defendant to place the applicant in financial position in which he would have been if he had been correctly classified; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to place the applicant in financial position in which he would have been if he had been correctly classified;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

---
<PAGE>   1


                                                                 Exhibit 24.1

                               POWER OF ATTORNEY

         KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS that the undersigned director and/or
officer of ANTEC Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the "Corporation"), which
is about to file an annual report pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, on Form 10-K, hereby constitutes
and appoints Lawrence A. Margolis, Mark J. Scagliuso and James E. Knox and each
of them his or her true and lawful attorney-in-fact and agent, with full power
and all capacities, to sign the Corporation's Form 10-K and any and all
amendments thereto, and any other documents in connection therewith, to be
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, granting unto said
attorneys-in-fact and agents full power and authority to do and perform each
and every act and thing requisite and necessary to be done in and about the
premises, as fully to all intents and purposes as she or he might or could do
in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that said attorneys-in-fact
agents or their substitutes may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue
hereof.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has hereunto set his or her hand
and seal as of the 16th day of March, 1999.


                                                          /s/ ROD F. DAMMEYER
                                                          -------------------
                                                              Rod F. Dammeyer
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 23


                         CONSENT OF GRANT THORNTON LLP,
                  INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


The Board of Directors
Emrise Corporation

We have issued our report dated March 11, 2005, except for Note 17, as to which
the date is March 18, 2005, accompanying the consolidated financial statements
included in the Annual Report of Emrise Corporation on Form 10-K for the year
ended December 31, 2004.  We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference
of said report in the Registration Statements of Emrise Corporation (Nos.
333-74281, 333-71035, 333-69571, 333-12567 and 333-65528) on Form S-8.

/S/ GRANT THORNTON LLP

Los Angeles, California
March 18, 2005
ORDER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(Third Chamber)

11 June 2009

Case F‐81/08

**Zoe Ketselidou**

**v**

**Commission of the European Communities**

(Civil service – Officials – Action – Judgment of a Community court – Substantial new fact – None)

**Application:**brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Ms Ketselidou seeks annulment of the Commission’s decision of 10 January
2008 rejecting her request for revision of the calculation of her pension annuities resulting from the transfer to the Community
scheme of the actuarial equivalent of pension rights she had acquired in Greece.

**Held:**The application is dismissed as manifestly unfounded. The applicant is ordered to pay the costs in their entirety.

**Summary**

1.      *Officials – Actions – Time-limits – Reconsideration of an administrative decision that has become definitive*

*(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)*

2.      *Officials – Actions – Prior administrative complaint – Time-limits – Claim barred by lapse of time – Reopening – Condition
– New fact*

*(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)*

1.      The existence of a new and substantial fact may warrant the submission of a request for reconsideration of a decision that
has become definitive upon expiry of the time-limits for appeal. The fact in question must be capable of substantially changing
the situation of the person seeking reconsideration of that decision. Furthermore, it is for the person concerned to submit
his administrative request within a reasonable period. His interest in seeking to bring his administrative situation into
line with new rules must be weighed against the need for legal certainty.

(see paras 32-36)

See:

231/84 *Valentini* v *Commission* [1985] ECR 3027, para. 14; 232/85 *Becker* v *Commission* [1986] ECR 3401, para. 10

T‐495/93 *Carrer and Others* v *Court of Justice* [1994] ECR‐SC I‐A‐201 and II‐651, para. 20; T‐202/97 *Koopman* v *Commission* [1998] ECR‐SC I‐A‐163 and II‐511, para. 24; T‐42/97 *Lebedef* v *Commission* [1998] ECR‐SC I‐A‐371 and II‐1071, para. 25; T‐186/98 *Inpesca* v *Commission* [2001] ECR II‐557, para. 51

F‐92/05 *Genette* v *Commission* [2007] ECR‐SC I‐A‐1‐0000 and II‐A‐1‐0000, para. 62

2.      The finding, by a judgment of a Community court, that an administrative decision of general application infringes the Staff
Regulations cannot constitute, in respect of officials who have failed to make use in good time of the possible remedies offered
by the Staff Regulations, a new fact warranting the submission of a request for reconsideration of individual decisions which
the appointing authority has adopted concerning them.

(see para. 47)

See:

T‐16/97 *Chauvin* v *Commission* [1997] ECR-SC I‐A‐237 and II‐681, paras 39 to 45; T‐165/97 *Gómez de la Cruz Talegón* v *Commission* [2000] ECR‐SC I‐A‐19 and II‐79, para. 51
# C_2008272EN.01000801.xml

| 25.10.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 272/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.10.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 272/8

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 16 July 2008 — 1. Makro Zelfbedieningsgroothandel CV, 2. Metro Cash & Carry BV and 3. Remo Zaandam BV v Diesel SpA

(Case C-324/08)

(2008/C 272/10)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: 1. Makro Zelfbedieningsgroothandel CV, 2. Metro Cash & Carry BV and 3. Remo Zaandam BV

Appellants:

Respondent: Diesel SpA

Respondent:

Questions referred

| 1. | In the case where goods bearing a trade mark proprietor's mark have previously been placed on the market within the EEA, but not by him or with his express consent, must the same criteria be applied in determining whether this has occurred with the (implicit) consent of the trade mark proprietor, within the meaning of Article 7(1) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC (1) of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks, as are applied in the case where such goods have previously been placed on the market outside the EEA by the trade mark proprietor or with his consent? |
| --- | --- |

1.

In the case where goods bearing a trade mark proprietor's mark have previously been placed on the market within the EEA, but not by him or with his express consent, must the same criteria be applied in determining whether this has occurred with the (implicit) consent of the trade mark proprietor, within the meaning of Article 7(1) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC (1) of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks, as are applied in the case where such goods have previously been placed on the market outside the EEA by the trade mark proprietor or with his consent?

within

1

outside

| 2. | If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative, what criteria — whether or not derived (in part) from the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-9/93 IHT and Danzinger v Ideal-Standard and Wabco Standard [1994] ECR I-2789, ... — must be applied in the first case referred to in that question in order to determine whether the trade mark proprietor has given (implicit) consent within the meaning of Directive 89/104/EEC? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative, what criteria — whether or not derived (in part) from the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-9/93 IHT and Danzinger v Ideal-Standard and Wabco Standard [1994] ECR I-2789, ... — must be applied in the first case referred to in that question in order to determine whether the trade mark proprietor has given (implicit) consent within the meaning of Directive 89/104/EEC?

IHT and Danzinger

Ideal-Standard and Wabco Standard

---

(1)  OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1.

1

---
*

### Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED May 15, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-40111 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

VERSUS

ALFONSO ROCHA-GAYTAN Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

(2:05-CR-594-ALL) ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * This court previously affirmed the conviction and sentence of appellant, Alfonso Rocha-Gaytan. UnitedStatesv. Rocha-Gaytan, 202 F. App’x 827 (5th Cir. 2006). On March 30, 2007, the Supreme Court vacated our judgment in this case and remanded the case to this court for further consideration in light of Lopez v. Gonzales, 127 S.Ct. 625 (2006).Following the Supreme Court’s remand we received supplemental

letter briefs from both parties with respect to the impact of Lopez. The government concedes, and we agree that, under Lopez, the district court erred in imposing an eight-level enhancement for Appellant’s prior controlled substance conviction. In light of this error, the issue on appeal is whether we should vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing or whether the appeal is now moot. The parties agree that Rocha-Gaytan has completed the confinement portion of his sentence and has apparently been deported from the United States, although he remains subject to the terms of his supervised release. This Court recently found a similar case moot when the appellant had already been released from prison and deported. See UnitedStates v. Rosenbaum-Alanis, __ F.3d

__, No. 05-41400, 2007 WL 926832 (5th Cir. Mar. 29, 2007). Because the defendant in Rosenbaum-Alanis was barred from entering the United States, and therefore could not be resentenced, the Court could not grant the relief requested. Id. at *2. We findRosenbaum-Alanis controlling, andbecauseRocha-Gaytan is barred from entering the United States, we cannot grant his request to be resentenced. Rocha-Gaytan recognizes this precedent and wishes to preserve the issue for further review. The appeal is moot and therefore DISMISSED.
# C_2008209EN.01005402.xml

| 15.8.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 209/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 209/54

---

Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 26 June 2008 — VDH Projektentwicklung and Edeka Rhein-Ruhr v Commission

(Case T-185/08 R)

(Interim measures - Inadmissibility)

(2008/C 209/97)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: VDH Projektentwicklung GmbH (Erkelenz, Germany) and Edeka Handelsgesellschaft Rhein-Ruhr mbH (Moers, Germany) (represented by: C. Antweiler, lawyer)

Applicants:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: R. Sauer, D. Kukovec and O. Weber, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Application for interim measures under Article 243 EC in relation to an action for failure to act against the Commission.

Operative part of the order

The President of the Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the application for interim measures as inadmissible; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the application for interim measures as inadmissible;

| 2. | Orders the applicants to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the applicants to bear their own costs.

---
Exhibit 21
                         Subsidiaries of the Registrant


1.   Western Energy Management, Inc. ("WEM"), is a Delaware corporation and is a
     wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company.

2.   Onsite Energy  Services,  Inc.  ("OES"),  is a Kansas  corporation and is a
     wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company.

3.   Onsite/Mid-States,   Inc.  ("OMS"),  is  a  Kansas  corporation  and  is  a
     wholly-owned subsidiary of OES.

4.   SYCOM ONSITE Corporation ("SO Corporation"),  is a Delaware corporation and
     is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company.

5.   Lighting Technology Services,  Inc.("LTS"), is a California corporation and
     is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company.

6.   Onsite  Energy  de  Panama,  S.A.  is a  Panamanian  corporation  and  is a
     wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company.

7.   REEP Onsite, Inc. ("REEP") is a Delaware  corporation and is a wholly-owned
     subsidiary of the Company.

8.   ERSI Onsite, Inc. ("ERSI") is a Delaware  corporation and is a wholly-owned
     subsidiary of the Company.
# C_2009205EN.01003002.xml

| 29.8.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 205/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 205/30

---

Order of the President of the Court of 3 June 2009 — People's Mojahedin Organisation of Iran v Council of the European Union, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Commission of the European Communities, Kingdom of the Netherlands

(Case C-576/08) (1)

1

2009/C 205/53

Language of the case: English

Language of the case: English

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 55, 7.3.2008.

1

---
# Leslie - Appalachian Regional Commission

- Kentucky River Area Development District Executive Director Michelle Allen Email m&#105;&#99;&#x68;&#x65;l&#108;&#101;&#x40;&#x6b;&#x72;a&#100;&#100;&#x2e;&#x6f;rgThe post Kentucky River Area Development District appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
EXHIBIT 31.1



CERTIFICATION



I, Timothy L. Smith, the President and Chief Executive Officer of NB&T Financial Group, Inc., certify that:



1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of NB&T Financial Group, Inc.;



2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual report;



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;



4. The registrants other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:



a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;



b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures
and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal year that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and



5. The registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):



a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting.



|                     |  |                                                
|-------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------
|Date: March 15, 2005 |  | /s/ Timothy L. Smith                           
|                     |  | Timothy L. Smith                               
|                     |  | Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer



59
# C_2009032EN.01004102.xml

| 7.2.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 32/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 32/41

---

Action brought on 14 November 2008 — Ryanair/Commission

(Case T-496/08)

(2009/C 32/80)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ryanair Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: E. Vahida, I. Metaxas-Maragkidis, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | declare in accordance with Articles 230 and 231 EC that the Commission's implied decision refusing access to the documents for which access was requested by the applicant in an application dated 25 June 2008 is void; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare in accordance with Articles 230 and 231 EC that the Commission's implied decision refusing access to the documents for which access was requested by the applicant in an application dated 25 June 2008 is void;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings; and |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings; and

| — | take such further action as the Court may deem appropriate. |
| --- | --- |

—

take such further action as the Court may deem appropriate.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By means of this application the applicant seeks annulment of the Commission implied decision rejecting the applicant's request, pursuant to Regulation No 1049/2001 (1), of the access to documents relating to State aid procedures concerning the presumed State aid granted through an agreement with the operator of Berlin-Schönefeld airport.

1

The pleas in law and main arguments relied on by the applicant are similar to those relied on in Case T-494/08 Ryanair v Commission.

Ryanair

Commission

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43.

1

---
#### In the Matter of James Curry, Appellant, v Thomas A. Coughlin III, as Commissioner of the Department of Correctional Services, et al., Respondents.

— Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (McDermott, J.), entered December 11, 1990 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondent Commissioner of Correctional Services finding petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner challenges the determination that he violated the disciplinary rule prohibiting the use of a controlled substance on the ground that the specimen bottle was not labeled until after the sample was taken and there was a six-hour period when the specimen was not secured. We find both arguments unpersuasive. First, it is undisputed that the specimen bottle was labeled by a correction officer in petitioner’s presence immediately after he gave the sample. Next, with respect to petitioner’s claim that the chain of custody was flawed, petitioner failed to meet his burden on this issue as he offered *971nothing more than mere speculation that the specimen could have been confused with other samples *(see, Matter of Price v Coughlin,*116 AD2d 898, 899). Equally unavailing is petitioner’s claim that he was denied adequate employee assistance because his assistant failed to obtain various items that he had requested. Because the items petitioner requested were either without probative value or were readily available to him, no prejudice resulted from any alleged failure *(see, Matter of Irby v Coughlin,*161 AD2d 860, 861; *Matter of Serrano v Coughlin,*152 AD2d 790, 792).

Mikoll, J. P., Levine, Mercure, Crew III and Harvey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.