alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2004273EN.01000903.xml

| 6.11.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 273/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 273/9

---

ORDER OF THE COURT

ORDER OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 9 July 2004

in Case C-116/03 P: Augusto Fichtner v Commission of the European Communities (1)

1

(Appeals - Officials - Disciplinary measure - Removal from post with entitlement to old-age pension - Pursuit of outside activities without prior authorisation)

(2004/C 273/18)

Language of the case: Italian

In Case C-116/03 P: August Fichtner, former official of the Commission of the European Communities, residing at Besozzo (Italy) (Avocats: F. Colussi and M. Tamburini) — appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Fourth Chamber) of 16 January 2003, Fichtner v Commission (T-75/00 ECR p. II-51), seeking to have the judgment set aside, the other parties in the procedures being: Commission of the European Communities (Agent: J. Currall, assisted by A. Dal Ferro) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber, F. Macken (Rapporteur) A. Borg Barthet, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 July 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Mr Fichtner to bear the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Fichtner to bear the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 146 of 21.6.2003.

1

---
EXHIBIT 32.2


     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 Online Gaming Systems, Ltd. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard
Dunning, Acting Chief Financial 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, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

      (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.


Date:   June 30, 2007                       By: /s/ Richard Dunning
                                                ---------------------------
                                                Richard Dunning
                                                Chief Executive Officer and
                                                Acting Chief Financial Officer
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-2477
In Re: EDWARD R. BUTLER, Debtor.

_________________________ TERRY L. MUSIKA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus EDWARD R. BUTLER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Alexander Harvey II, Senior District Judge. (CA-96-1855-H, BK-90-5-308-JS, CA-96-1881-H, BK-90-5-3087- JS, ADV-91-5-5430-JS) Submitted: December 2, 1997 Decided: December 18, 1997 Before HAMILTON, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Edward R. Butler, Appellant Pro Se. Kenneth Oestreicher, WHITEFORD, TAYLOR & PRESTON, Baltimore, Maryland; Terry L. Musika, UNITED STATES TRUSTEE, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.2 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order affirmingthe bankruptcy court's orders denying Appellant's motions for reconsideration of the orders approving the settlement of a claim of the bankruptcy estate and approving payment of compensation to theattorneys for the Trustee. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Musika v. Butler , Nos. CA-96-1855-H; BK-90-5-308-JS; CA-96-1881-H; BK-90-5-3087-JS; ADV-91-5-5430-JS (D. Md. Sept. 11, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2098 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2098

To eliminate the authority of the executive branch to further restrict 
   the conduct of individuals in relation to firearms or ammunition.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 14, 2017

  Mr. Perry introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To eliminate the authority of the executive branch to further restrict 
   the conduct of individuals in relation to firearms or ammunition.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Second Amendment Defense Act of 
2017''.

SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY TO FURTHER RESTRICT CONDUCT 
              OF INDIVIDUALS IN RELATION TO FIREARMS OR AMMUNITION.

    No officer or employee of the Federal Government may take any 
action that would result in a limitation on the conduct of an 
individual in relation to a firearm or ammunition that is more 
restrictive than the limitations on the conduct that are in effect as 
of January 3, 2016.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1



                                XETEL CORPORATION
                        COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                         IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT SHARE DATA
                                   (UNAUDITED)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                        Three Months Ended           Six Months Ended
                                   September 27,  September 28, September 27, September 28,
                                       1997          1996          1997         1996
                                       ----          ----          ----         ----
<S>                                   <C>           <C>           <C>         <C>    
Shares issued and outstanding  (1)      8,821         8,742         8,816       8,639

Common Stock Equivalents
   Stock options               (2)        841            --           845         952
                                      -------       -------       -------     -------
Weighted average shares
   outstanding                          9,662         8,742         9,661       9,591
                                      -------       -------       -------     -------
Net income                            $    61       $  (368)      $   516     $   478
                                      -------       -------       -------     -------
Earnings per share                    $  0.01       $ (0.04)      $  0.05     $  0.05
                                      -------       -------       -------     -------
</TABLE>



(1) Shares issued and outstanding based on the weighted average method.

(2) Stock options based on the treasury stock method using average market price.
July 7 , 2016



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

ANDREW HOUSTON ALL EN , Appellant
NO. 14

- 15

- 00115

- CR NO. 14

- 15

- 00116

- CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

_____________________ ___________ This cause, an appeal from the judgment in favor of appellee, The State of Texas, signed, January 14, 2015, was heard on the transcript of the record. We have i nspected the record and find no error in the judgment. We order the judgment of the court below AFFIRMED

. We order appellant, Andrew Houston Allen , jointly and severally, t o pay all costs incurred in this appeal.
We further order this decision certified below for observance.
# C_2004201EN.01001303.xml

| 7.8.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 201/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.8.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 201/13

---

Action brought on 14 June 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

(Case C-253/04)

(2004/C 201/26)

An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 14 June 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Georgios Zavvos and Michael Shotter, of its Legal Service.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that, by failing to adopt, and in any event to notify to the Commission, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/21/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive), the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by failing to adopt, and in any event to notify to the Commission, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/21/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive), the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

1

| — | order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for transposition of the directive into national law expired on 24 July 2003.

---

(1)  
  OJ No L 108, 24.4.2002, p. 33.

1

---
ex10-3.htm


EXHIBIT 10.3


 


AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO STOCK AND NOTE PURCHASE AGREEMENT


 


This AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO STOCK AND NOTE PURCHASE AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”) is made and entered as of the 4th day of February, 2011, by and among Merisel, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), Merisel Americas, Inc., a Delaware corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of the Company (“Merisel Americas”) and Phoenix Acquisition Company II, L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company (“Phoenix”).


 


RECITALS


 


WHEREAS, the Company, Merisel Americas and Phoenix are party to that certain Stock and Note Purchase Agreement, dated as of September 19, 1997 (the “Original Agreement”); and


 


WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 8.03 of the Original Agreement, the parties intend to amend the Original Agreement as set forth herein.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the mutual covenants and agreements herein contained, and intending to be legally bound hereby, the parties hereby agree as follows:


 


AGREEMENTS


 


Section 1.                   Definitions.  Defined terms used herein and not otherwise defined shall have the meanings set forth in the Original Agreement, as amended.


 


Section 2.                   Amendments.  The Original Agreement is hereby amended to delete Section 6.07 of the Original Agreement in its entirety.  Except as amended herein, all other terms, covenants, agreements and conditions set forth in the Original Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.


 


Section 3.                   Counterparts.  This Amendment may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.


 


Section 4.                   Titles.  The titles of the Sections of this Amendment are used for convenience only and are not to be considered in construing or interpreting this Agreement.


 


Section 5.                   Governing Law.  This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the state of New York, without regard to any applicable conflicts of law.


 


[Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank]






  





  











  








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


 




	 	
PHOENIX ACQUISITION COMPANY II, L.L.C.

	 
	 	 	 	 
	
 

	
By: 

	Stonington Capital Appreciation 1994 Fund, L.P. as a member	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	By:	Stonington Partners, L.P., its general partner	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	By:	Stonington Partners, Inc. II, its general partner	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/ Bradley Hoecker	 
	 	 	Name:	Bradley Hoecker	 
	 	 	Title:	Director and Partner	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	MERISEL, INC.	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/ Donald R. Uzzi	 
	 	 	Name:	
Donald R. Uzzi

	 
	 	 	Title:	
Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President

	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	MERISEL AMERICAS, INC.	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/ Donald R. Uzzi	 
	 	 	Name:	
Donald R. Uzzi

	 
	 	 	Title:	President
# C_2004266EN.01000101.xml

| 29.10.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 266/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.10.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 266/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

28 October 2004

(2004/C 266/01)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2711 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 135,20 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4342 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,6957 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,0426 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5316 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 88,12 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,1935 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,5763 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 31,617 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 246,38 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6743 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4308 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,3424 |
| ROL | Romanian leu | 40 925 |
| SIT | Slovenian tolar | 239,89 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 39,955 |
| TRL | Turkish lira | 1 874 700 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,7127 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5606 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,892 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,8645 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,1151 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 433,17 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 7,8529 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2711

JPY

Japanese yen

135,20

DKK

Danish krone

7,4342

GBP

Pound sterling

0,6957

SEK

Swedish krona

9,0426

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5316

ISK

Iceland króna

88,12

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,1935

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5763

CZK

Czech koruna

31,617

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

246,38

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6743

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4308

PLN

Polish zloty

4,3424

ROL

Romanian leu

40 925

SIT

Slovenian tolar

239,89

SKK

Slovak koruna

39,955

TRL

Turkish lira

1 874 700

AUD

Australian dollar

1,7127

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5606

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,892

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,8645

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,1151

KRW

South Korean won

1 433,17

ZAR

South African rand

7,8529

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

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



     The undersigned  executive  officers of the Registrant  hereby certify that
this  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended  September 30, 2002
(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 Registrant.


                                By:/s/ Joseph J. Bouffard
                                   ---------------------------------------------
                                   Name:  Joseph J. Bouffard
                                   Title: President and Chief Executive Officer


                                By:/s/ Michael J. Dee
                                   ---------------------------------------------
                                   Name:  Michael J. Dee
                                   Title: Chief Financial Officer and Controller


Date: November 12, 2002
#### SCOTT CROSS and others v. JOHN WILLIAMS, Ex’r. and others.

*Appeal.*

Where an appeal is not prosecuted according *to*law, *the*appellee has the right to have a transcript of the record sent up, or a certificate of the clerk that an appeal was taken, and the case docketed and the appeal dismissed. Rule 2, §7, (89 N. C., 598).

Motion of defendants to dismiss appeal heard at October Term, 1884, of the Supreme Court.

No counsel for plaintiffs.

*Messrs. Gray & Stamps,*for defendants.

Merrimon, J.

After the call of causes from the sixth dis*497trict was concluded at the present term, the appellees in this case filed the certificate of the clerk of the superior ®ourt of Davidson county, from which it appears that a judgment was rendered against the appellants at the spring term, 1884, of that court, from which they took an appeal to this court, that the case upon appeal for this court was settled by the presiding judge on the 4th day of July, 1884, but no undertaking upon appeal was given. Upon the certificate of the clerk thus filed the appellees moved to dismiss the appeal, as allowed by section.7 of Rule 2.

An appeal is not pending in this court in the sense of the statute, (The Code, § 967,) until it is brought up and docketed. As soon, however, as it is taken, as directed by the statute, this court may for good cause upon proper application of the appellant or of the appellee, bring it up by means of the writ of certiorari, or allow the appellee to bring up a transcript of the record, or a certificate of the clerk to the effect that the appeal was taken, docket the same and move to dismiss it. The appellant has no right to take an appeal and bring it up, or abandon it at his will and pleasure; he must bring if up in the established course of procedure. The appellee has a right to have the appeal disposed of according to law, and if the appellant will not prosecute it, the appellee may rid himself of it, and have the benefit of the judgment appealed from.

The provision of The Code, §967, refers to and provides for dismissing appeals *pending*in this court, that is, to appeals regularly brought up and docketed. But section 7 of Rule 2, refers to and provides for dismissing appeals, in cases where the appellant neglects or refuses to bring up and docket bis appeal.

In this case the appellants have failed to bring up their appeal as required by law. Hence, the appellees have the right to move to docket.and dismiss it. They have complied with the rule, and the motion must be allowed.

Appeal dismissed.
# C_2004300EN.01003802.xml

| 4.12.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 300/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.12.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 300/38

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 30 September 2004

in Case T-246/02: Albano Ferrer de Moncada v Commission of the European Communities (1)

1

(Officials - Staff report - Delay in drawing up - Damages)

(2004/C 300/75)

Language of the case: French

In Case T-246/02: Albano Ferrer de Moncada, an official of the Commission of the European Communities, residing in Luxembourg (Luxembourg), represented by G. Vandersanden, L. Levi and A. Finchelstein, lawyers, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: C. Berardis-Kayser, assisted by D. Waelbroeck, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — application for, first, annulment of the decision whereby the Commission impliedly rejected the applicant's claim of 28 August 2001 for damages owing to the delay in drawing up his staff reports for the reference periods 1995/1997 and 1997/1999 and, in so far as necessary, of the decision whereby the Commission impliedly rejected the applicant's complaint of 14 January 2002 and, second, damages in respect of the loss sustained by the applicant owing to the delay in drawing up those staff reports, the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of J. Azizi, President, J. Jaeger and F. Dehousse, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has delivered a judgment on 30 September 2004, in which it:

| 1. | Orders the Commission to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 7 000 in addition to the sum of EUR 1 000 already awarded by the Commission; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Orders the Commission to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 7 000 in addition to the sum of EUR 1 000 already awarded by the Commission;

| 2. | Dismisses the remainder of the application; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the remainder of the application;

| 3. | Orders the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 247 of 12.10.2002.

1

---
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON



### O RDER

Appellate case name: Elisa Merrill Wilson v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01

- 11

- 01125

- CR

Trial court case number: 10CCR149142

Trial court: County Court at Law No. 2 of Fort Bend County

The court requests that the court reporter in the above

- referenced case supplement

the record on appeal with the following original exhibits:

State’s Exhibit No. 5

– Telephone recording

State’s Exhibit No. 7

– Telephone recording

State’s exhibit No. 8

– Telephone recording

State’s exhibit No. 9

– Audio tape

Defendant’s exhibit No. 13

– Audio tape

The Clerk of this Court is directed to cooperate with the district clerk and/or court

reporter to provide for the safekeeping , transportation, and return of such exhibit. See

T EX

. R. A PP P. 34.6( g )(2).

The exhibit is due in this Court no later than Novem ber 15 , 201 2

.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Justice Bland

Acting individually

Date: October 31, 2012