alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2008116EN.01003502.xml

| 9.5.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 116/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.5.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 116/35

---

Action brought on 3 March 2008 — Y v Commission

(Case F-29/08)

(2008/C 116/69)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Y (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: N. Lhoëst, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

The subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision of the authority authorised to conclude contracts of employment of 24 May 2007 to dismiss the applicant as a contractual agent as a result of alleged insufficient conduct in the service and compensation for the material and non-material damage suffered.

Form of order sought

| — | Annulment of the decision of the authority authorised to conclude contracts of employment of 24 May 2007 dismissing the applicant as a contractual agent; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annulment of the decision of the authority authorised to conclude contracts of employment of 24 May 2007 dismissing the applicant as a contractual agent;

| — | in as far as necessary, annul the Commission's express decision of 16 November 2007 rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant pursuant to Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations on 31 August 2007; |
| --- | --- |

—

in as far as necessary, annul the Commission's express decision of 16 November 2007 rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant pursuant to Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations on 31 August 2007;

| — | order the Commission to pay the remuneration which the applicant would have continued to receive if the authority authorised to conclude contracts of employment had not terminated the contract of employment prematurely and unlawfully, and all the benefits to which the applicant is entitled; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the remuneration which the applicant would have continued to receive if the authority authorised to conclude contracts of employment had not terminated the contract of employment prematurely and unlawfully, and all the benefits to which the applicant is entitled;

| — | order the Commission to pay the applicant compensation in the value of EUR 500 000 for non-material harm suffered, subject to an increase during the proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the applicant compensation in the value of EUR 500 000 for non-material harm suffered, subject to an increase during the proceedings;

| — | order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

---
Sr4

)

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ‘X\IfZ REGION IX L PRO1

75 Hawthorne Street

San Francisco, CA 94105-3901

APR 092013 Mr. Norman W. Fichthorn REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR

Hunton and Williams, LLP

2200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20037

Dear Mr. Fichthom:

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has received the petition you submitted on February

4, 2013 on behalf of Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District (SRP), seeking

reconsideration and a stay of effectiveness of certain elements of EPA’s final rule entitled “Approval,

Disapproval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Arizona; Regional Haze State and

Federal Implementation Plans” as it applies to the Coronado Generating Station (Coronado). 77 FR

72512 (December 5, 2012).

As indicated in your petition, EPA proposed to set emissions limits for nitrogen oxides (NOx) of 0.050

lb/MMBtu and 0.080 lb/MMBtu (based on a rolling 30-boiler-operating-day average) for Coronado

Units 1 and 2 respectively. 77 FR 42834, 42869 (July 20, 2012). In response to comments received

during the public comment period, our final rule set a single plant-wide limit across the two Coronado

units of 0.065 lb/MMBtu. In addition, the final rule established a compliance determination method that

ensures inclusion ofthirty boiler-operating days of emissions data for both units, even if both units are

not operating. With respect to Coronado, we explained that, “during periods when only one unit

operates, this method allows the one operating unit to average out short-term emission spikes by using

the most recent thirty boiler-operating-day value from the non-operating unit.” 77 FR 72527. SRP’s

petition seeks reconsideration ofthis element of our final rule pursuant to Clean Air Action section

307(d)(7)(B).

In response to your petition, EPA is granting reconsideration of the compliance methodology for NOx at

Coronado. Accordingly, EPA plans to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking seeking comment on an

alternative compliance methodology for NOx at Coronado. In addition, because we initially proposed

different NOx emission limits for Coronado Units 1 and 2, we also intend to seek comment on the

emission limits for each ofthose two units. At this time, EPA is not acting on any other portion of SRP’s

petition, including SRP’s request for stay ofthe final rule.

If you have any questions regarding the reconsideration process, please contact Charlotte Withey at

(415) 972-3915 or Lea Anderson at (202) 564-5571. We thank you for your continued interest in this

rule and look forward to hearing from you during the reconsideration process.

cc: See next page

Printed on Recycled Paper
cc: Eric Massey, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality

Joseph P. Mikitish, Arizona Attorney General’s Office

Michael Hiatt, Earthjustice

Arizona Congressional Delegation

Kelly Barr, Kara Montalvo and Karilee Rarnaley, SRP
EX-32.1 SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

EXHIBIT 32.1

I, Craig H. Barratt, the chief executive
officer of Atheros Communications, Inc. (the Company), certify for the purposes of section 1350 of chapter 63 of title 18 of the United States Code that, to my knowledge,:



|(i) | The Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2006 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(ii) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|---- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: May 10, 2006



|                                                                                    
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Craig H. Barratt                                                                
|Craig H. Barratt President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NOS. WR-85,938-01 & WR-85,938-02

EX PARTE CURTIS JAMES MCGUIRE, Applicant

ON APPLICATIONS FOR WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NOS. 62375-01-A & 67654-01-A 

IN THE 47 DISTRICT COURT TH

FROM POTTER COUNTY 

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court these applications for writs of habeas corpus. Ex

parte Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of the offenses

of aggravated sexual assault of a child and sexual assault of a child. He was sentenced to

imprisonment for twenty-three and twenty years, respectively. 

On October 18, 2016, orders designating issues were signed by the trial court. The habeas

records have been properly forwarded to this Court by the district clerk pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P.

73.4(b)(5). However, the records have been forwarded without the trial court having resolved the
designated issues in these case. We remand these applications to the 47 District Court of Potter th

County to allow the trial judge to complete an evidentiary investigation and enterfindings of fact and

conclusions of law.

These applications will be held in abeyance until the trial court has resolved the fact issues. 

The issues shall be resolved within 90 days of this order. A supplemental transcript containing all

affidavits and interrogatories or the transcription of the court reporter’s notes from any hearing or

deposition, along with the trial court’s supplemental findings of fact and conclusions of law, shall

be forwarded to this Court within 120 days of the date of this order. Any extensions of time must

be requested by the trial court and shall be obtained from this Court. 

Filed: March 1, 2017

Do not publish
**OFFICE OF**  **THE ATTORNEY**  **GENERAL OF**  **TEXAS**

Honomblo B. Y. CunUmgbm cou?aty Auditor &vmro county Corslcuzm,Texas

Dear Sir:

**aplalon of**  **thb dqmrt**  ted **br beem**  **roca1v.d.**

on 13 or APtio1e 3g12rrVernon'sAnnofiated tetutor,reads ln part *II follovllt
"The aomnlssioners~ aourt la aountleahrviag a populatlonot tvonty tbouam%d (20,000)lmbBb1tulta or more, and 1088 thul w hundmd 8&i Wty thouaand (lgO,OOO)lnbabltratsaaoordiag to the lut precedingWdeml Cssuw, &a bwoby l uthoriaedmd it shrll be it8 duty to fix the Ml~'le8 **Of** rll the r0ii0ving 3~8~3 o~flc~mb,...."HonorableE. Y. Cumlmghun, Pa@ 2

Seotion 4 of Artlclb 3912e, supra, provldms that:
"In all oountieaof thlr State oontaininga populationof 10s~ than one hundred end ninety thousand (190,000)inhabitant8 aaaordlngto the last precedingFederal %imm wher&n the county or preoinct of'fioers **am** oompensatedon **a** salary bassls mder the provlsio~ of this Aat, there shall be created a fund to be known as the 'Officers Salary FuRd of the County, Teaa. Suoh fuud shall bo kept 8-e and apart from all other county fund8, aad ahall be held pnd dlrrbureed for the purpose of paying the ealarieeof officersand the salaries of deputies,assistante and olerka of oftlaerawho are drawinga rralary fron said pund under the provielonsof thi8 Aat, and to pay the authorizedsxpemes of their offioes. Suah fmd shall be deposited in the county depoaitory and shall be proteoted to the sama extent a8 0th0r 00wr funds." Paragraph (c) of Seotloa 6, Article 3912o, supra, provldet3

tbatt

“ Sm.(a). Any morals8 mamining in the Of'tideara* Salary Fund or funds o? any county at the end of any fiscal year aftm all salariesand authorlmd exponaes inourrodagainst said Puud for said ye6r ehall have been paid may be, m order of the o~mmlssloaera~ oourt, transferredto the credit of the General Fuml of the oounty."

mvarro County has a populationof more than tveaty thoueand (20,000 ninety thousand 1 inhabttants aM less thau ow hundred and 190,000)acoordlng to the laet primeding Federal Census and the aounty offlalalsOS said oouaty are oompensatedon M annual salary basis. IQIvarro county has an Offlaers' Salary Fund as providedby Section 4, aupra.

In vimi ol the foregoing statutes,you are reapeatfully **adviwsd** that It 1s th8 opinion of thin departmemtthat after all salariesand authorized6xpenses **lnourrsd** againstlionorable E. Y. Cunningham, Pago 3

the Offlosrs~Salary Fund **Sor** e&id year have bean paid, it IS legal for tim coaslls*loA6ra ’ oourt to traMf6P any monI6s rem8Inlng in said Fund to the General Fund of the Oounty at the end of the flscrl y~r.

Trusting that the foregoing fully anmmra your lnqulry, ve are
# C_2010246EN.01000402.xml

| 11.9.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 246/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.9.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 246/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 29 July 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the VAT and Duties Tribunal, Manchester (United Kingdom)) — Astra Zeneca UK Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

(Case C-40/09) (1)

1

(Sixth VAT Directive - Article 2(1) - Concept of the supply of services effected for consideration - Retail vouchers provided by an undertaking to its employees as part of their remuneration)

2010/C 246/06

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Referring court

VAT and Duties Tribunal, Manchester

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Astra Zeneca UK Ltd

Applicant:

Defendant: Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — VAT and Duties Tribunal, Manchester — Interpretation of Articles 2(1), 6(2)(b) and 17(2) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Meaning of ‘a supply of services for consideration’ — Retail vouchers made available to an employee under his or her employment contract, part of their value being charged against that employee’s salary

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(1) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 95/7/EC of 10 April 1995, must be interpreted as meaning that the provision of a retail voucher by a company, which acquired that voucher at a price including value added tax, to its employees in exchange for their giving up part of their cash remuneration constitutes a supply of services effected for consideration within the meaning of that provision.

---

(1)  OJ C 90, 18.4.2009.

1

---
Exhibit 99.1

     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Internet Business's
International, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending
September 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), I, Albert R. Reda,, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes Oxley Act, that:

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

(2)  The Information contained in the Report fairly represents,
in all material aspects, the financial condition and result of
operations on the Company.



By: /s/  Albert R. Reda
Chief Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 120 (Monday, September 10, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1450]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

          IN HONOR OF THE 100TH ANNIVERSARY OF DUBLIN BOROUGH

                                 ______
                                 

                      HON. MICHAEL G. FITZPATRICK

                            of pennsylvania

                    in the house of representatives

                       Monday, September 10, 2012

  Mr. FITZPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Dublin 
Borough in my home of Bucks County, Pennsylvania as it celebrates its 
100th Anniversary this month.
  Dublin's history reaches back to before the Revolutionary War and our 
declaration of independence from Great Britain.
  The first Scotch-Irish settlers began settling what is now Upper 
Bucks County as early as 1681, and in 1832, the people of this 
community began an eighty-year process of petitioning the state of 
Pennsylvania to become its own municipality.
  In September 1912, the people of Dublin earned their autonomy and 
have built a community of which they can be proud.
  Since the formation of the Borough of Dublin 100 years ago, the 
population has exploded and a rich diversity of small businesses and 
families have come to add to its proud history.
  While they have faced the same trials and challenges each of our 
communities have faced over the course of the last century, the people 
of Dublin have persevered and continue to build a welcoming place to 
live, work and raise their families.
  I commend Dublin Borough for its perseverance and success in these 
first 100 years, and wish them the best of luck in the years to come.

                          ____________________
```
Exhibit 32.1

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


In  connection  with the  Quarterly  Report  of AJ & J PHARMA  CORPORATION  (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended  September 30, 2005 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Kevin Ericksteen,  Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C.  1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

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.


                                                  /s/ Kevin Ericksteen
                                                  ---------------------------
Date: November 4, 2005                                Kevin Ericksteen
                                                      Chief Executive Officer