alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2004217EN.01003201.xml

| 28.8.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/32

---

Action brought on 17 June 2004 by Asociación de Exportadores Españoles de Productos Farmacéuticos (Aseprofar) y Española de Desarrollo e Impulso Farmacéutico, SA (Edifa) against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-247/04)

(2004/C 217/57)

Language of the case: Spanish

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 17 June 2004 by Asociación de Exportadores Españoles de Productos Farmacéuticos (Aseprofar) y Española de Desarrollo e Impulso Farmacéutico, SA (Edifa), established in Madrid, represented by L. Ortiz Blanco, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the European Commission incorporated in the letters of 2 April, 6 May and 10 May 2004 by virtue of which it decided to take no further action in respect of the complaints registered under numbers P/2002/4609 and 2003/5119 (as they relate to the applicability of Article 29 EC) on the ground that Real Decreto 725/2003 of 13 June 2003 does not infringe Article 29 EC or Article 10 in conjunction with Article 29 EC; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the European Commission incorporated in the letters of 2 April, 6 May and 10 May 2004 by virtue of which it decided to take no further action in respect of the complaints registered under numbers P/2002/4609 and 2003/5119 (as they relate to the applicability of Article 29 EC) on the ground that Real Decreto 725/2003 of 13 June 2003 does not infringe Article 29 EC or Article 10 in conjunction with Article 29 EC;

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

—

Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The present action seeks annulment of the decision contained in the letters from the European Commission of 2 April and 6 and 10 May 2004, in that they reject the complaints put forward by the applicants (P/2002/4609 and 2003/5119) against the adoption of Real Decreto 725/2003 of 13 June 2003 inasmuch as it amends certain aspects of Article 100(2) of Ley 25/1990 on medicinal products.

The Real Decreto requires wholesalers which distribute pharmaceutical products to notify the health authorities of the quantities of medicinal products supplied to pharmacies and other wholesalers. That information is subsequently provided to pharmaceutical laboratories by that public authority. The applicants consider that pharmaceutical laboratories can thus effectively take measures to block exports to other Community countries carried out by exporting wholesalers, by learning which wholesalers are exporting medicinal products, what pharmaceutical products are being exported and in what quantities.

The applicants therefore consider that the Real Decreto in question infringes Article 29 of the EC Treaty or Article 10 thereof in conjunction with Article 29.

---
# C_2004297EN.01000101.xml

| 2.12.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.12.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/1

---

Interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations (1):

1

2,03 % on 1 December 2004

Euro exchange rates (2)

2

1 December 2004

(2004/C 297/01)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3294 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 136,83 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4303 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,69155 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 8,9396 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5200 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 86,22 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,1295 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9559 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,5794 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 30,984 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 244,83 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6862 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4318 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1786 |
| ROL | Romanian leu | 38 378 |
| SIT | Slovenian tolar | 239,83 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 39,220 |
| TRL | Turkish lira | 1 890 400 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,7236 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5845 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,3365 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,8604 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,1749 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 390,69 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 7,7288 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3294

JPY

Japanese yen

136,83

DKK

Danish krone

7,4303

GBP

Pound sterling

0,69155

SEK

Swedish krona

8,9396

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5200

ISK

Iceland króna

86,22

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,1295

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9559

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5794

CZK

Czech koruna

30,984

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

244,83

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6862

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4318

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1786

ROL

Romanian leu

38 378

SIT

Slovenian tolar

239,83

SKK

Slovak koruna

39,220

TRL

Turkish lira

1 890 400

AUD

Australian dollar

1,7236

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5845

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,3365

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,8604

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,1749

KRW

South Korean won

1 390,69

ZAR

South African rand

7,7288

---

(1)  Rate applied to the most recent operation carried out before the indicated day. In the case of a variable rate tender, the interest rate is the marginal rate.

1

(2)

2

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
# C_2004262EN.01000701.xml

| 23.10.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.10.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/7

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 9 September 2004

in Case C-417/02: Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 85/384/EEC - Recognition of architects' diplomas - Registration procedure with the Greek Technical Board (Technico Epimelitirio Elladas) - Obligation to provide a document stating that the evidence of formal qualifications concerned is covered by the system of mutual recognition)

(2004/C 262/13)

Language of the case: Greek

In Case C-417/02: action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 19 November 2002, Commission of the European Communities (Agent: M. Patakia) v Hellenic Republic (Agent: E. Skandalou) — the Court (First Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber, A. Rosas, S. von Bahr, K. Lenaerts and K. Schiemann (Rapporteur), Judges; J. Kokott, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 September 2004, in which it:

| 1. | Declares that, by adopting and retaining in force the provisions of Article 3(1)(c) of Presidential Decree No 107/1993 of 22 March 1993, and by accepting that the Technico Epimelitirio Elladas (Greek Technical Board), with which a person must be registered in order to pursue the profession of architect in Greece, carries out, with significant delays, the processing of the files and the registration of Community nationals holding foreign diplomas which ought to be recognised under Council Directive 85/384/EEC of 10 June 1985 on the mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications in architecture, including measures to facilitate the effective exercise of the right of establishment and freedom to provide services, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by adopting and retaining in force the provisions of Article 3(1)(c) of Presidential Decree No 107/1993 of 22 March 1993, and by accepting that the Technico Epimelitirio Elladas (Greek Technical Board), with which a person must be registered in order to pursue the profession of architect in Greece, carries out, with significant delays, the processing of the files and the registration of Community nationals holding foreign diplomas which ought to be recognised under Council Directive 85/384/EEC of 10 June 1985 on the mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications in architecture, including measures to facilitate the effective exercise of the right of establishment and freedom to provide services, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

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

2.

Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 19 of 25.1.2003.

1

---
NRCS CONSERVATION PRACTICE EFFECTS - NETWORK DIAGRAM September 2020

Bivalve Aquaculture Gear

and Biofouling Control

(400)

Initial setting: Near-shore, 

intertidal and subtidal areas 

where bivalve aquaculture 

occurs.

2. Removal of biofouling 

organisms from gear

D.1 (+) Water 

flow and food 

supply 

Integrated Pest 

Management (595)

D.4 (-) 

Aquatic 

nuisance 

species

D.8 (+) 

Labor

I.1 (+) Shellfish 

health and 

growth 

I.7 (+) Native 

plants and 

animals: 

sustainability

C.2 (+/-) Biodiversity

I.3 (+) Quality 

of marine 

waters

D.9 (+) Cost of 

operation and 

maintenance (O&M) 

D.7 (+/-) 

Bird 

habitat: 

landings; 

food

I.9 (+) Habitat for 

shoreline, wading 

and shallow water 

wildlife species 

(non-fisheries) 

I.10 (+/-) Coastal wildlife 

populations 

1. Gear monitoring, cycling, 

cleaning, replacement

I.12 (+/-) Net 

return

I.11 (+/-) Potential 

income

I.4 (+) Livestock 

production 

Start

D.3 (+) 

Organic 

loading of: 

a) water 

column and 

substrate; or 

b) upland 

disposal site

D.5 (-) 

Entrapment 

of marine 

mammals 

and turtles

I.8 (+) 

Protection for 

Threatened 

Rare & 

Endangered 

I.2 (+) Species

Biofiltration

I.6 (+) 

Potential 

contaminants 

to downstream 

discharge

O&M 

activities 

(avoidance, 

mitigation)

3. Disposal of gear waste outside of 

the marine environment

D.6 (+/-) Fish, 

benthic 

community: 

passage; 

fragmentation

D.2 (+) Gas/oil 

use and 

discharge

I.5 (+) 

Petrochemical 

contaminants to 

water and air

C.3 (+) Water quality; 

Air quality 

Access 

Control (472)

Combustion 

System 

Improvement 

(372)

LEGEND

#. Created by practice

D. Direct effect

I. Indirect effect

C. Cumulative effect

Pathway

Mitigating practice

Associated practice

Notes:

Effects are qualified with a plus 

(+) or minus (-). These symbols 

indicate only an increase (+) or a 

decrease (-) in the effect upon 

the resource, not whether the 

effect is beneficial or adverse.

C.1 (+/-) Income and income stability (individuals and community)
#### Estate of Kosanda: Milne, Contestant, Appellant, vs. Dorset, Proponent, Respondent.

For the appellant: *Baldwin & Bosshard*of La Crosse.

For the respondent: *Hale & Burke*and *Fred E. Steele,*all of La Crosse.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.

A motion for a rehearing was denied, with $25 costs, on June 24, 1935.
Exhibit 32



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18. U.S.C. SECTION 1350



The undersigned executive officers of the Registrant hereby certify that this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended December 31, 2004 (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. BouffardName:

Joseph J. BouffardTitle:

President and Chief Executive OfficerFebruary 11, 2005By:

/s/ Michael J. DeeName:

Michael J. DeeTitle:

Chief Financial Officer and ControllerFebruary 11, 2005
# C_2004262EN.01005301.xml

| 23.10.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.10.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/53

---

Action brought on 10 August 2004 by Wanadoo S.A. against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-339/04)

(2004/C 262/97)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 10 August 2004 by Wanadoo S.A., established in Issy-les-Moulineaux (France), represented by Hugues Calvet et Marie-Cécile Rameau, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Commission of 18 May 2004 ordering the applicant, and all undertakings directly or indirectly controlled by it, to submit to an inspection pursuant to Article 20(4) of Council Regulation No 1/2003 (1); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Commission of 18 May 2004 ordering the applicant, and all undertakings directly or indirectly controlled by it, to submit to an inspection pursuant to Article 20(4) of Council Regulation No 1/2003 (1);

1

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

In support of its action, the applicant submits that by adopting the contested decision the Commission infringed the duty of cooperation with the national courts and authorities pursuant to Article 10 EC and Regulation No 1/2003. According to the applicant, the Commission failed to disclose to the national court which authorised the inspection in question the existence of proceedings pending before the French competition authority concerning the alleged infringements of Article 82 EC by the applicant and of a decision of the same authority of 11 May 2004. Furthermore, the applicant submits that the French competition authority remains in charge of the case and that consequently the Commission should not have intervened in it.

The applicant further submits that the contested decision infringes the obligation carefully and impartially to examine all relevant evidence in the case, the duty to state reasons and the principle of proportionality. Lastly, it alleges a manifest error of assessment.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1 of 4.1.2003, p. 1).

1

---
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


C\_2004156EN.01000201.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 12.6.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/2 |

---

Lists to be used for determining the composition of the formations of the Court

(2004/C 156/04)

At its meeting on 14 May 2004, the Court drew up the list referred to in Article 11b(2) of the Rules of Procedure for the purpose of determining the composition of the Grand Chamber, as follows:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | Mr Gulmann |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | Mr Levits |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | Mr La Pergola |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | Mr Lõhmus |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | Mr Puissochet |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | Mr Klučka |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | Mr Schintgen |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | Mr Malenovský |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | Ms Macken |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | Mr Ilešič |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | Ms Colneric |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | Mr Borg-Barthet |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | Mr von Bahr |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | Mr Arestis |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | Mr Cunha Rodrigues |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | Mr Juhász |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | Ms Silva de Lapuerta |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | Mr Kūris |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | Mr Lenaerts |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | Mr Makarczyk |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | Mr Schiemann |

At its meeting on 14 May 2004, the Court drew up the lists referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 11c(2) of the Rules of Procedure for the purpose of determining the composition of the Chambers of five Judges, as follows:

For the First Chamber:

Ms Colneric

Mr Levits

Mr Cunha Rodrigues

Mr Ilešič

Mr Lenaerts

Mr Juhász

Mr Schiemann

For the Second Chamber:

Mr Gulmann

Mr Klučka

Mr Schintgen

Mr Arestis

Ms Silva de Lapuerta

Mr Kūris

Mr Makarczyk

For the Third Chamber:

Mr La Pergola

Mr Lõhmus

Mr Puissochet

Mr Malenovský

Ms Macken

Mr Borg-Barthet

Mr von Bahr

At its meeting on 14 May 2004, the Court drew up the lists referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 11c(2) of the Rules of Procedure for the purpose of determining the composition of the Chambers of three Judges, as follows:

For the Fourth Chamber:

Ms Colneric

Mr Lenaerts

Mr Schiemann

Mr Juhász

Mr Ilešič

Mr Levits

For the Fifth Chamber:

Mr Schintgen

Ms Silva de Lapuerta

Mr Makarczyk

Mr Kūris

Mr Arestis

Mr Klučka

For the Sixth Chamber:

Mr La Pergola

Ms Macken

Mr von Bahr

Mr Borg-Barthet

Mr Malenovský

Mr Lõhmus

---
<PAGE>   1

                                                                  Exhibit 10.86


March 8, 2001

Robert De Vaere
2815 Crystal Ridge Road
Encinitas, California 92024

Re: Amendment to Severance Benefits Agreement

Dear Bob:

This amendment (the "Amendment") to the Severance Benefits Agreement (the
"Agreement") dated May 4, 2000 by and between EPIMMUNE INC. (the "Company"), and
ROBERT DE VAERE (the "Employee") is entered into as of March 8, 2001 (the
"Amendment Date").

1.      The Company agrees that the paragraph on page 3 of the Agreement which
formerly read:

        If, within 365 days following the occurrence of a Change in Control,
        your employment is involuntarily terminated without Cause or you
        voluntarily terminate your employment for Good Reason, then (1) within
        30 days of such termination you will receive a lump-sum payment equal to
        six months of base salary subject to any applicable withholding of
        federal, state or local taxes and (2) the vesting of any stock option
        for Company stock and the time during which such option may be exercised
        immediately will be accelerated as to 50% of the then unvested shares.

is hereby amended and restated as follows:

        If, within 365 days following the occurrence of a Change in Control,
        your employment is involuntarily terminated without Cause or you
        voluntarily terminate your employment for Good Reason, then (1) within
        30 days of such termination you will receive a lump-sum payment equal to
        twelve (12) months of your then current base salary subject to any
        applicable withholding of federal, state or local taxes and (2) the
        vesting of any stock option for Company stock and the time during which
        such option may be exercised immediately will be accelerated as to 100%
        of the then unvested shares, so that all such unvested shares will be
        immediately vested and exercisable as of the date of termination.

2.      Except as specifically amended by this Amendment, the terms and
conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

3.      This Amendment shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the
laws of the State of California.



                                        1



<PAGE>   2

4.      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.

Very truly yours,



EPIMMUNE INC.


Robert W. Chesnut, Ph.D.
Acting President


Agreed and Accepted:


/s/ Robert De Vaere
---------------------------
ROBERT DE VAERE



                                        2
[Cite as State v. Yates , 2016-Ohio-7356.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT ASHTABULA COUNTY, OHIO

STATE OF OHIO, : MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff-Appellee, : CASE NO. 2016- A -0015 - vs - : DARREN M. YATES, : Defendant-Appellant. :

Criminal appeal from the Ashtabula Municipal Court, Case No. 08 CRB 01158. Judgment: Appeal dismissed.

Michael Franklin, Ashtabula City Solicitor, and Lori B. Lamer, Assistant Solicitor,Ashtabula Municipal Court, 110 West 44th Street, Ashtabula, OH 44004 (For PlaintiffAppellee). Darren M. Yates, pro se, 3703 Lake Av enue, Apt. 612, Asht abula, OH 44004 (Defendant-Appellant).

COLLEEN MARY O’TOOLE, J. {¶1} This matter is before this court on appellant’s February 12, 2016 pro se notice of appeal from the trial court’s judgment of January 29, 2016. {¶2} Appellee, the state of Ohio, moved to dismiss the appeal on April 1, 2016. {¶3} The case stems from two charges brought against appellant in the trial court on June 27, 2008, of soliciting and possession of drugs. {¶4} After years of failed attempts in bringing appellant to trial, on January 29, 2016, the state moved the trial court to dismiss the actions due to the passage of time2 from the filing of complaint and since the state’s witness was no longer employed with the Ashtabula County Police Department. On the same date, January 29, 2016, the trial court dismissed both charges against appellant. {¶5} Appellant appealed on February 12, 2016, and he has since filed multiple pro se pleadings with this court which are difficult to follow. {¶6} In the motion to dismiss, appellee asserts that appellant appears to be disputing everything regarding his case “from appearances to bonds to probable cause.” In reviewing appellant’s pleadings, it does appear that appellant has taken issue with events that occurred during his underlying case. {¶7} “An order is a final order that may be reviewed, affirmed, modified or reversed, with or without retrial, when it is * * * [a]n order that affects a substantial right in an action that in effect determines the action and prevents a judgment.” R.C. 2505.02(B)(1). The dismissal of charges in a criminal case is not a final appealable

order. State v. Williams , 2011-Ohio-6412; Lakewood v. Pfeifer (1992), 83 Ohio App.3d 47; State v. McWilliams , 1995 Ohio App. LEXIS 2774. {¶8} Under the circumstances of the present case, we find that the appealed judgment does not constitute a final appealable order under R.C. 2505.02. {¶9} Accordingly, it is ordered that appellee’s motion to dismiss is granted, and the appeal is hereby dismissed.

CYNTHIA WESTCOTT RICE, P.J., THOMAS R. WRIGHT, J.,

concur.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED MAY 17, 2022

NO. 03-21-00278-CR

Ex parte John D. Ferrara

APPEAL FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO 3 OF HAYS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE BYRNE, JUSTICES KELLY AND SMITH

DISMISSED AS MOOT-- OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE BYRNE

This is an appeal from the trial court’s denial of appellant’s “Application for Pre-Indictment 

Habeas Corpus Relief Motion to Di[s]miss Prosecution”. Having reviewed the record, the Court 

concludes that the appeal is moot and should be dismissed. Therefore, the Court dismisses the 

appeal as moot. Appellant shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and in the 

court below.
Order entered August 13, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-00930-CR

ALICE ANNETTE STEELE, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 194th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F08-45120-M

ORDER

Appellant’s August 11, 2014 motion for extension of time to file appellant’s reply brief is 

GRANTED. The time to file appellant’s reply brief is EXTENDED to September 10, 2014.

/s/ DAVID EVANS 

JUSTICE