alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2017038EN.01002102.xml

| 6.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/21

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2016 — DEI v Commission

(Case T-169/08 RENV) (1)

1

((Competition - Abuse of a dominant position - Greek market for the supply of lignite and Greek wholesale electricity market - Decision finding an infringement of Article 86(1) EC, read in combination with Article 82 EC - Grant or maintenance of exploitation rights for public deposits of lignite in favour of a public undertaking - Definition of the markets at issue - Existence of unequal opportunities - Obligation to state reasons - Legitimate expectations - Misuse of powers - Proportionality))

(2017/C 038/28)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Dimosia Epicheirisi Ilektrismou AE (DEI) (Athens, Greece) (represented by: P. Anestis, lawyer)

Applicant:

Intervener in support of the applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: P. Mylonopoulos and K. Boskovits, Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Christoforou, Agent, and A. Oikonomou, lawyer)

Defendant:

Interveners in support of the defendant: Elpedison Paragogi Ilektrikis Energeias AE (Elpedison Energeiaki), formerly Energeiaki Thessalonikis AE (Marousi, Greece) and Elliniki Energeia kai Anaptyxi AE (HE & D SA) (Kifisia, Greece) (represented by: P. Skouris and E. Trova, lawyers) and Mytilinaios AE (Athens), Protergia AE (Athens) et Alouminion tis Ellados VEAE, formerly Alouminion AE (Athens) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, I. Zarzoura, D. Diakopoulos and E. Chrisafis, lawyers)

Interveners in support of the defendant

Re:

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking the annulment of Commission decision C(2008) 824 final of 5 March 2008 on the granting or maintaining in force by the Hellenic Republic of rights in favour of DEI for the extraction of lignite.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Dimosia Epicheirisi Ilektrismou AE (DEI), in addition to bearing its own costs, to pay those incurred by the European Commission, by Elpedison Paragogi Ilektrikis Energeias AE (Elpedison Energeiaki), by Elliniki Energeia kai Anaptyxi AE (HE & D SA), by Mytilinaios AE, by Protergia AE and by Alouminion tis Ellados VEAE; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Dimosia Epicheirisi Ilektrismou AE (DEI), in addition to bearing its own costs, to pay those incurred by the European Commission, by Elpedison Paragogi Ilektrikis Energeias AE (Elpedison Energeiaki), by Elliniki Energeia kai Anaptyxi AE (HE & D SA), by Mytilinaios AE, by Protergia AE and by Alouminion tis Ellados VEAE;

| 3. | Declares that the Hellenic Republic is to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Declares that the Hellenic Republic is to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 183, 19.7.2008.

1

---
# C_2009205EN.01003802.xml

| 29.8.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 205/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 205/38

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 30 June 2009 — Securvita v OHIM (Natur-Aktien-Index)

(Case T-285/08) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Application for the Community word mark Natur-Aktien-Index - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) - Request for an amendment - Manifest inadmissibility)

2009/C 205/71

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Securvita — Gesellschaft zur Entwicklung alternativer Versicherungskonzepte mbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: M. van Eendenburg, C. Uhlig and J. Nabert, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: S. Schäffner, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 May 2008 (Case R 525/2007-4), concerning an application for the registration of the word sign Natur-Aktien-Index as a Community trade mark

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | dismisses the action as manifestly inadmissible; |
| --- | --- |

1.

dismisses the action as manifestly inadmissible;

| 2. | orders Securvita Gesellschaft zur Entwicklung alternativer Versicherungskonzepte mbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

orders Securvita Gesellschaft zur Entwicklung alternativer Versicherungskonzepte mbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 247, 27.9.2008.

1

---
#### In the Matter of Jerome Person, Petitioner, v Arthur Cooperman et al., Respondents.

— Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of a writ of prohibition to bar the retrial of the petitioner under Queens County Indictment No. 10664/91, on the ground that retrial would violate his right not to twice be placed in jeopardy for the same offense.

Adjudged that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The petitioner claims that the Double Jeopardy Clause bars retrial because his motion for a mistrial at the prior trial was provoked by deliberate prosecutorial misconduct. We disagree. Our review of the relevant portions of the record reveals that the prosecutor’s conduct was not "intended to provoke the [petitioner] into moving for a mistrial” *(Oregon v Kennedy,*456 US 667, 679). "Absent such a bad-faith intent, the misconduct does not constitute that type of prosecutorial overreaching contemplated by the United States Supreme Court as requir*899ing the barring of reprosecution on the ground of double jeopardy” *(People v Copeland,*127 AD2d 846, 847; *see also, Schoendorf v Mullen,*152 AD2d 715, 716). Kunzeman, J. P., Miller, O’Brien and Ritter, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Edward P. Hamill, Appellant.

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Cacciabaudo, J.), rendered November 20, 1989, convicting him of leaving the scene of an incident without reporting and reckless driving, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant in this case made a pretrial motion to dismiss the indictment on both statutory and constitutional speedy trial grounds *(see,*CPL 30.20, 30.30; *People v Taranovich,*37 NY2d 442, 444-445). However, the defendant’s speedy trial argument, to the extent that it is based on statutory rather than constitutional provisions, is beyond the scope of appellate review by virtue of his plea of guilty *(see, People v Gooden,*151 AD2d 773; *see also, People v Fernandez,*67 NY2d 686, 688; *People v Prescott,*66 NY2d 216, 220, *cert denied*475 US 1150). Moreover, based upon our review of the record on appeal, we find no proof that the defendant’s constitutional right to a speedy trial was violated *(see, People v Sledge,*122 AD2d 293).

*266We have reviewed the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

MICHAEL M BLUESTEIN, 

Appellant, 

vs. 

ELLEN G. BLUESTEIN, N/K/A ELLEN 

GREEN-MILLER, 

No. 70158 

FILED 

JUN 0 3 2016 

Respondent. 

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL 

Pursuant to the settlement conference, the stipulation for 

voluntary dismissal, and cause appearing, this appeal is dismissed. The 

parties shall bear their own costs and attorney fees. NRAP 42(b). 

It is so ORDERED. 

CLERK OF THE SUPREME COURT 

TRACE K. LINDEMAN 

BY: 

aNact 

cc: Hon. Cheryl B. Moss, District Judge, Family Court Division 

Carolyn Worrell, Settlement Judge 

Urban Law Firm 

Wright Law Offices 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

CLERK'S ORDER 

(01-1947
# C_2008116EN.01001401.xml

| 9.5.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 116/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.5.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 116/14

---

Action brought on 29 February 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-95/08)

(2008/C 116/24)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Rozet and P. Oliver, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Declare that, by not putting in place the authorities able to verify the implementation of the principles of good laboratory practice (GLP), the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3 of Directive 2004/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 on the inspection and verification of good laboratory practice (GLP) (1); |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that, by not putting in place the authorities able to verify the implementation of the principles of good laboratory practice (GLP), the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3 of Directive 2004/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 on the inspection and verification of good laboratory practice (GLP) (1);

1

| — | Order the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The time-limit for the implementation of Directive 2004/9/EC expired on 12 March 2004. The defendant is still not equipped with authorities having the competences necessary to inspect the laboratories and to audit the studies carried out by those laboratories to assess compliance with good laboratory practice.

---

(1)  Directive 2004/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 on the inspection and verification of good laboratory practice (GLP) (OJ 2004 L 50, p. 28).

1

---
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 248 (Thursday, December 28, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 89720-89721]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-28682]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Aging Special Emphasis 
Panel; NAD CT.
    Date: February 7, 2024.
    Time: 12:00 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, 7201 
Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Bita Nakhai, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, 
Scientific Review Branch, National Institute on Aging, 7201 
Wisconsin Avenue, Gateway Bldg., Suite 2C212, Bethesda, MD 20892, 
301-402-7701, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4628272d2e272f2406282f2768282f2e68212930"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="98f6f9f3f0f9f1fad8f6f1f9b6f6f1f0b6fff7ee">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, Aging 
Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)


[[Page 89721]]


    Dated: December 22, 2023.
Miguelina Perez,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2023-28682 Filed 12-27-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 244 (Thursday, December 21, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 88425]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-28055]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail and USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] 
Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

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 Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
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 & USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] 
Contract 140 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at 
www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2024-116, CP2024-121.

Sean C. Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2023-28055 Filed 12-20-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
Exhibit 12.1

Landrys Restaurants, Inc.

Ratio of Earnings to Fixed
Charges



|                                                             |  |                         |   |  |             |  
|------------------------------------------------------------ |  | ----------------------- | - |  | ----------- | -
|                                                             |  | Year Ended December 31, |  
|                                                             |  | 2009                    |   |  | 2008        |  
|Income (loss) from continuing operations before income taxes |  | (17,085,779             | ) |  | 20,968,943  |  
|Fixed charges, as adjusted                                   |  | 168,884,795             |   |  | 98,675,491  |  
|                                                             |  |                         |   |  |             |  
|                                                             |  | 151,799,016             |   |  | 119,644,434 |  
|                                                             |  |                         |   |  |             |  
|Fixed charges:                                               |  |                         |   |  |             |  
|Interest expense including amortization of debt costs        |  | 150,539,755             |   |  | 80,537,796  |  
|Capitalized interest                                         |  | 8,237,191               |   |  | 3,085,328   |  
|Interest factor on rent (1/3 rent expense)                   |  | 18,345,040              |   |  | 18,137,695  |  
|Total fixed charges                                          |  | 177,121,986             |   |  | 101,760,819 |  
|Less capitalized interest                                    |  | (8,237,191              | ) |  | (3,085,328  | )
|                                                             |  |                         |   |  |             |  
|Fixed charges, as adjusted                                   |  | 168,884,795             |   |  | 98,675,491  |  
|                                                             |  |                         |   |  |             |  
|Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                           |  | 0.9                     |   |  | 1.2         |  
|                                                             |  |                         |   |  |             |
**Exhibit 32.1**

** **

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEFEXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C SS.1350 ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEYACT OF 2002**

 

 

In connection withthe Quarterly Report on Form, 10-Q (the "Report") of Amaru, Inc. (the "Company"), for the period ended March 31, 2014 hasfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Chua Leong Hin, President and ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

/s/ Chua Leong Hin                                     

President, Chief Executive Officer

May15, 2014
# C_2019413EN.01005101.xml

| 9.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 413/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 413/51

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 September 2019 — France v Commission

(Case T-507/18) (1)

(EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Expenses incurred by France under the Programme of Options Specifically Relating to Remoteness and Insularity (POSEI) - Inaccurate accounting for certain consignments of bananas (financial years 2013 — 2016) - Flat-rate financial correction)

(2019/C 413/61)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: French Republic (represented by: F. Alabrune, D. Colas, S. Horrenberger, A.-L. Desjonquères, A. Alidière and C. Mosser, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Lewis and J. Aquilina, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/873 of 13 June 2018 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2018 L 152, p. 29) in so far as it applies to the French Republic a financial correction of 5 %, amounting to a total sum of EUR 1 945 435,39, as regards the measures entitled ‘Other Direct Aid — POSEI’, on the ground of ‘[i]naccurate accounting for certain consignments of bananas’ for the financial years 2013 — 2016.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

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

2.

Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 392, 29.10.2018.

---
##### 



Exhibit 10.28.1
 FIRST AMENDMENT
TO
FIRST AMENDED AND RESTATED
AGREEMENT OF LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
OF
COLONIAL PROPERTIES SERVICES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
      Amendment of Partnership Agreement
 Admission of Additional Limited Partner




---



##### 



COLONIAL REALTY LIMITED PARTNERSHIPBy:
    
    COLONIAL PROPERTIES TRUST, its general partnerBy:
    
    /s/ Thomas H. LowderName:
    
    Thomas H. LowderTitle:
    
    President and CEO
  COLONIAL PROPERTIES SERVICES, INC.By:
    
    /s/ Thomas H. LowderName:
    
    Thomas H. LowderTitle:
    
    President and CEO
# C_2010113EN.01001101.xml

| 1.5.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 113/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.5.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 113/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 March 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale del Lazio — Italy) — Attanasio Group Srl v Comune di Carbognano

(Case C-384/08) (1)

1

(Articles 43 EC and 48 EC - Regional legislation laying down mandatory minimum distances between roadside service stations - Jurisdiction of the Court and admissibility of the reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of establishment - Restriction)

2010/C 113/14

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunale amministrativo regionale del Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Attanasio Group Srl

Applicant:

Defendant: Comune di Carbognano

Defendant:

Intervening party: Felgas Petroli Srl

Intervening party:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio (Italy) — Compatibility of national provisions laying down mandatory minimum distances between roadside petrol stations with Articles 43, 48, 49 and 56 EC and the principles of non-discrimination.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 43 EC, read in conjunction with Article 48 EC, is to be interpreted as meaning that domestic provisions such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which lay down mandatory minimum distances between roadside service stations, constitute a restriction on the freedom of establishment enshrined in the EC Treaty. In circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, that restriction does not appear to be justified by the objectives of road safety, protection of health and the environment, or the rationalisation of the service provided to users, these being matters for the national court to verify.

---

(1)  OJ C 301, 22.11.2008.

1

---