alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway,

 Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

December 21, 2009 

p1214 

Order 

 

December 21, 2009 

139728 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 139728 

 COA: 292824 

Genesee CC: 08-023965-FH; 

08-023966-FH 

ERIC DAMON LEATHERWOOD, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 24, 2009 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
# C_2004180EN.01000802.xml

| 13.7.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 180/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.7.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 180/8

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case No COMP/M.3375 — STATOIL / SDS)

(2004/C 180/06)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 1 July 2004, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/) free of charge. This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/) free of charge. This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form in the ‘CEN’ version of the CELEX database, under document number 304M3375. CELEX is the computerized documentation system of European Community law. For more information on how to access Celex, see ‘subscriber information’ links below: |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form in the ‘CEN’ version of the CELEX database, under document number 304M3375. CELEX is the computerized documentation system of European Community law. For more information on how to access Celex, see ‘subscriber information’ links below:

CELEX: subscriber information

http://publications.eu.int/general/en/eulaw_en.htm

---
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 Duke Realty Limited Partnership (the Partnership) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Christie B. Kelly, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the General Partner, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(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 results of operations of the Partnership.



/s/ Christie B. KellyChristie B. KellyExecutive Vice President andChief Financial Officer of the General PartnerDate: November 12, 2010


A signed original of this
written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has
been provided to Duke Realty Limited Partnership, and will be retained by Duke Realty Limited Partnership and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# C_2005019EN.01002301.xml

| 22.1.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 19/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.1.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 19/23

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 10 November 2004

in Case T-165/03 Eduard Vonier v Commission of the European Communities (1)

1

(Officials - Competition - Non-inclusion on the reserve list - National seminar - Composition of the selection board - Oral test - Private life - Knowledge of languages)

(2005/C 19/50)

Language of the case: German

In Case T-165/03, Eduard Vonier, residing in Amsterdam (Netherlands), represented by W. Schmolke, lawyer, against Commission of the European Communities (Agent: J. Currall, assisted by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg) – application, first, for annulment of the decision of 30 July 2002, by which the selection board in competition COM/A/6/01 decided not to include the applicant on the reserve list of administrators in the field of foreign relations and, secondly, for damages in compensation for the loss and damage allegedly incurred – the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of J. Azizi, President, F. Dehousse and O. Czúcz, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 10 November 2004, in which it:

| (1) | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Dismisses the action;

| (2) | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 213 of 6.9.2003.

1

---
**Exhibit 3.8**

CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT 

TO THE 

RESTATED 

CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION 

OF 

CORAUTUS GENETICS INC. 

Corautus Genetics Inc., a corporation organized under and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware (the “Corporation”), certifies that:

FIRST: The name of the Corporation is Corautus Genetics Inc. The Corporation was originally incorporated under the name “UrogenCorp.” The Corporation’s original Certificate of Incorporation was filed with the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware on June 30, 1995. A Restated Certificate of Incorporation was filed with the Secretary of State of the Stateof Delaware on December 21, 1995. Certificates of Amendment to the Restated Certificate of Incorporation were filed with the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware on March 22, 2000, October 1, 2001, February 5,2003, March 10, 2003, and June 5, 2007. 

SECOND: The Board of Directors of the Corporation, acting in accordance with theprovisions of Sections 141 and 242 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware (the “General Corporation Law”) adopted resolutions to amend Article IV of the Restated Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation by insertingthe following paragraph at the end of such Article: 

“Effective upon the filing of this Certificate of Amendment to the RestatedCertificate of Incorporation with the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware, each fifteen (15) shares of the Corporation’s Common Stock, par value $0.001 per share, issued and outstanding, and issued and held in the treasury ofthe Corporation, shall, automatically and without any action on the part of the respective holders thereof, be reclassified and combined into one (1) share of Common Stock, par value $0.001 per share, of the Corporation. No fractional shares ofCommon Stock shall be issued and, in lieu thereof, any stockholder who would otherwise be entitled to receive a fractional share as a result of the actions set forth herein shall instead be entitled to receive cash equal to such fractional sharemultiplied by the last reported sales price of the Corporation’s Common Stock on the NASDAQ Capital Market (or such other market (e.g., bulletin board or pink sheets) on which the Corporation’s Common Stock then trades) on the business dayimmediately preceding the date this Certificate of Amendment to the Restated Certificate of Incorporation is filed with the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware (as adjusted to give effect to the reclassification and combination contemplatedhereby).” 

THIRD: This Certificate of Amendment to the Restated Certificate of Incorporation was submitted to the stockholders of theCorporation and was duly approved by the required vote of stockholders of the Corporation in accordance with Section 242 of the General Corporation Law. 

 

1 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, said Certificate of Amendmentto the Restated Certificate of Incorporation has been duly executed by its authorized officer this 5th day of June 2007. 

 
CORAUTUS GENETICS INC.By /s/ Richard E. Otto Richard E. Otto Chief Executive Officer
 

2
# C_2004179EN.01001401.xml

| 10.7.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.7.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/14

---

Action brought on 13 May 2004 by Carmelo Morello against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-166/04)

(2004/C 179/27)

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 13 May 2004 by Carmelo Morello, living in Brussels, represented by Jacques Sambon and Pierre Paul Van Gehuchten, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| 1. | Annul the implied rejection of his application of 28 March 2003 and so far as necessary annul the rejection of his complaint; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annul the implied rejection of his application of 28 March 2003 and so far as necessary annul the rejection of his complaint;

| 2. | Order the Commission to pay him EUR 1 000 000 in damages for non-material damage and EUR 1 000 000 in damages for material damage; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Order the Commission to pay him EUR 1 000 000 in damages for non-material damage and EUR 1 000 000 in damages for material damage;

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

3.

Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, a Commission official, had applied in the context of another case for the annulment of the nomination of another official to a post of head of unit for which he had himself applied. The Court of First Instance upheld his action by annulling the appointment in question.

At the time of the delivery of the judgment in the previous case, the official appointed to the post in question had already been promoted and moved to another post, while the post of head of unit thus vacated had been filled by the reinstatement of another official at the end of his leave on personal grounds.

After the delivery of the judgment in the previous case, the applicant applied to the Commission for implementation of the judgment in question, and then lodged a complaint against the implied rejection of his application. The Commission rejected that complaint, holding that, in the absence of an available post, it was unable to take measures implementing the previous judgment.

The present action is directed against the rejection of the applicant's application. In support of his claims, the applicant pleads infringement of Article 233 EC, infringement of Articles 4, 7, 24, 25 and 45 of the Staff Regulations, infringement of the principle of sound administration and misuse of powers or procedure. He also claims to have suffered material and non-material damage by losing a serious chance of reaching Grade A3 by the end of his career, and seeks compensation in that regard.

---
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

PUBLIC MEETING ON STANDARDS FOR

RESIDENTIAL FURNACES AND BOILERS

U.S. Department of Energy

Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center

Polaris Room

1300 Pennsylvania Avenue,

Washington, DC 20004

September 29, 2004

Purpose

The Department will present its methodology for the Advance Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking (ANOPR) analysis and example results. The Department also will explain

its plans for the remaining analysis the analysis to support the Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking-and will seek input from stakeholders on its planned methodologies,

assumptions, and data sources.

Agenda

9:00-9:05 am Welcome

9:05-9: 15 am Introduction and Agenda Review

Doug Brookman

9:15-9:30 am Rulemaking Overview

Mohammed Khan

This is an overview of the analyses in the rulemaking, the

tools DOE uses to generate results for each analysis, and

the issues on which DOE would like input during today's

meeting.

9:30-10:00 am Comments from Participants

This is an open forum for participants to make a brief

summary statement and/or identify their key issues

regarding the ANOPR analyses, methods, and data.

10:00-10:30 am Engineering Analysis

Graham Stevens and Alex Lekov

This is a summary presentation and discussion regarding

the approach used and factors considered for the market

and technology assessment, screening analysis, and

engineering analysis, and a characterization of the results.

EE-RM/STD-01-350 COMMENT 59.2
10:30-10:45 am Break

10:45-11:30 am Engineering Analysis Continued

11:30 am-12:00 pm Life-Cycle Cost Analysis

Jim Lutz

This is a summary presentation and discussion regarding

the approach used and factors considered for the life-cycle

cost analysis, energy use, markups, and payback period

analysis, and a characterization of the results.

12:00-1:00 pm

1:00-1:45 pm

1:45-2:45 pm

Lunch (on your own)

Life-Cycle Cost Analysis Continued

National Impact Analysis

Alex Lekov

This is a summary presentation and discussion of issues

regarding the approach used and factors considered for the

national energy savings, net present value, and shipments

analysis, and a characterization of the results.

2:45-3:15 pm Discussion of Other Issues

This is an open forum to discuss any remaining questions

or issues identified by participants.

3:15-3:30 pm Break

3:30-4:30 pm NOPR Analyses and Next Steps

Jim McMahon, Mike Rivest and Mohammed Khan

This is a summary presentation and discussion of issues

regarding the planned revisions to the ANOPR analyses,

and the planned approach and factors that will be

considered for the manufacturer, utility, employment, and

regulatory impact analyses, and the environmental

assessment.

4:30-5:00 pm Final Discussions

This is an opportunity to discuss any remaining issues.

5:00 pm Adjourn

EE-RM/STD-01-350 COMMENT 59.2
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 Annual Report of International Tower Hill Mines Ltd. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Donna M. Moroney, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:



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 results of operations of the Company.





By:

/s/Donna M. Moroney



Donna M. Moroney,

Chief Financial Officer



October 11, 2005
# C_2004321EN.01000301.xml

| 28.12.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 321/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.12.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 321/3

---

NEW NATIONAL SIDE OF EURO CIRCULATION COINS

NEW NATIONAL SIDE OF EURO CIRCULATION COINS

(2004/C 321/03)

Image

National side of the new 2-euro commemorative circulation coin issued by the Vatican City State

National side of the new 2-euro commemorative circulation coin issued by the Vatican City State

Euro circulation coins have legal tender status throughout the euro area. The Commission publishes all new euro coin designs (1) with a view to informing anyone required to handle coins in the course of their work and the public at large. In accordance with the Council conclusions of 8 December 2003 (2), Member States and countries that have concluded a Monetary Agreement with the Community providing for the issuance of euro circulation coins are allowed to issue certain quantities of commemorative euro circulation coins on condition that not more than one new coin design is issued per country per year and that only the 2-euro denomination is used. These coins have the technical features of normal euro circulation coins, but bear a commemorative design on the obverse national side.

1

2

Issuing State: Vatican City State

Subject of commemoration: 75th Anniversary of the Founding of the Vatican City State

th

Factual description of the design: The inner part shows a schematic representation of the perimeter walls of the Vatican City with St Peter's Basilica in the foreground. The inscriptions ‘75o ANNO DELLO STATO’ and ‘1929-2004’ appear around the left- and upper right-hand edges of the inner part. To the bottom left, in smaller letters, is the name of the author ‘VEROI’ and the initials of the engraver ‘L.D.S. INC.’. The twelve stars of the European Union and the inscription ‘CITTA' DEL VATICANO’ are positioned around the outer circle.

o

Issue volume: max. 100 000 coins

Approximate issue period: from 15 December 2004.

---

(1)  See OJ C 373 of 28.12.2001, pp. 1-30 for a reference to all national sides that were issued in 2002.

1

(2)  See conclusions of the General Affairs Council of 8 December 2003 on changes in the design of national sides of euro coins. See also Commission Recommendation of 29 September 2003 on a common practice for changes to the design of national obverse sides of euro circulation coins (OJ L 264 of 15.10.2003, p. 38-39).

2

---
# C_2004262EN.01001901.xml

| 23.10.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.10.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/19

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsgericht Köln by order of that court of 30 June 2004 in the case of mdm Versandservice GmbH against Bundesrepublik Deutschland, joined parties: Deutsche Post AG

(Case C-352/04)

(2004/C 262/32)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgericht Köln (Cologne Administrative Court), Germany, of 30 June 2004, received at the Court Registry on 16 August 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of mdm Versandservice GmbH against Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Federal Republic of Germany), joined parties: Deutsche Post AG, on the following question:

Is Article 47(2) EC, read together with Article 95 EC, read together with the fifth indent of Article 12 of Directive 97/67/EC, (1) and with Article 7(1) of that directive, in both cases in the version brought into force by Directive 2002/39/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council, to be interpreted as meaning that where a universal service provider applies special tariffs to business customers who supply postal items already sorted to the postal network at points in the delivery chain that are not access points, the universal service provider must also apply those tariffs to undertakings who collect postal items from the sender and supply it already sorted to the postal network to the same access point and under the same conditions as business customers, and that the universal service provider is not entitled to refuse to do so on the ground that it is obliged to provide a universal service?

1

2

---

(1)  OJ L 15 of 21.1.1998, p. 14.

1

(2)  OJ L 176, p. 21.

2

---
#### Schwery, Appellant, vs. Industrial Commission and others, Respondents.

For the appellant: *C. A. Tennessen*of Kenosha.

For the respondents: The *Attorney General, Mortimer Levitan,*assistant attorney general, and *Riley & Ohm*of Madison.

*By the Court.*—

Judgment affirmed.
AV1ACION CIV1L 

Km. 9 Y, Carretera Panamericana, Ilopango, El Salvador, C. A. 

Mr. Paul Gretch 

Director 

Office of International Aviation 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

4007 th Street, S. W. Room 6402 

Washington, D. C. 20590 

Dear Mr. Gretch: 

Telefono 2565-4405 y Fax 2565-4408 

AAC -G L -014-20 12 -DE-N 

ILOPANGO, 10 de Febrero de 2012 

The El Salvador Civil Aviation Authority hereby confirms, that it will grant, on te basis of 

reciprocity, to any air carrier designated by the United States of America, the right to conduct fifth and 

seventh freedom traffic rights on schedules or non-schedules basis, which are in conformity to the Air 

Transport Agreement between the Government of the United States of America and the Government 

of El Salvador, signed on May 8'' 1997. 

Sincerely yours,
#### General Die & Stamping Corporation, Appellant, vs. Bolens, Respondent.

*October 13*

November *10, 1931.*

*665*Harry M. Silber*of Milwaukee, for the appellant.

For the respondent there was a brief by *Schanen & Huirás*of Port Washington, and oral argument by *Peter M, Huir as.*

*666Wickhem, J.

The only dispute in the evidence relates to the terms of the agreement between the parties. There was no issue upon the amount of labor and materials furnished, and plaintiff was clearly entitled to a verdict for $729.97 or nothing. Hence, there is no basis in the evidence for the jury’s conclusion that $227 remained due to the plaintiff. Under these circumstances the case is governed by the decision of this court in *New Home S. M. Co. v. Simon,*107 Wis. 368, 83 N. W. 649. In that case the plaintiff was either entitled to a verdict for the full amount of his claim or to nothing. The jury found for the plaintiff, and set the damages at a sum less than plaintiff was entitled to. The court said:

> “If plaintiff was entitled to a verdict, the amount of it was susceptible of being determined with mathematical accuracy. A verdict showing that the evidence, and the law as given by the court, were wholly disregarded by the jury as to an essential fact of the case, leaves it doubtful whether they considered and decided, upon the evidence, as to any question upon which defendant’s liability depended.”

The verdict in this case raises the same doubt as to whether the sole issue was decided upon the evidence, and while there was not here, as there was in the case just cited, a motion for new trial by' either of the parties, it appears probable that justice has not been done, and it is concluded that a new trial should be ordered as provided by sec. 251.09, Stats. *Koss v. A. Geo. Schulz Co.*195 Wis. 243, 218 N. W. 175.

*By the Court.*— Judgment reversed, and cause remanded with directions to grant a new trial.