alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2005045EN.01002501.xml

| 19.2.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.2.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/25

---

Action brought on 22 November 2004 by Au Lys de France against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-458/04)

(2005/C 45/56)

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 22 November 2004 by Au Lys de France, a company established in Le Raincy (France), represented by G. Lesourd, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the Commission's decision of 17 September 2004 and all its legal consequences. |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission's decision of 17 September 2004 and all its legal consequences.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The applicant was carrying on a retail business in the terminal at Paris/Charles de Gaulle airport. It lodged a complaint with the Commission relating to abuse of a dominant position within the meaning of Article 82 EC by the public undertaking, Aéroports de Paris, on the commercial concessions market in the public airport sector.

By the contested decision, the Commission notified the applicant that there was no sufficient Community interest in the complaint to justify the opening of a formal investigation.

In support of its action, the applicant relies, first, on error of law and manifest error of assessment in the decision as to the lack of a sufficient Community interest. According to the applicant, the Commission was mistaken in finding the absence of a sufficient interest to pursue the investigation of the case and in deciding that there was sufficient protection of the applicant's rights before the national courts.

Secondly, the applicant pleads an insufficient statement of reasons in breach of Article 253 EC because the Commission did not deal with various elements of the applicant's arguments.

Thirdly, the applicant pleads breach of Article 82 EC, because the Commission refused to investigate the complaint whereas, according to the applicant, there is abuse of a dominant position.

---
# C_2005030EN.01000101.xml

| 5.2.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 30/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.2.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 30/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

4 February 2005

(2005/C 30/01)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2958 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 134,71 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4435 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,6883 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,0853 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5591 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 81,48 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,292 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9557 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,583 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 29,963 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 243,79 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,696 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4306 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,981 |
| ROL | Romanian leu | 37 385 |
| SIT | Slovenian tolar | 239,72 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 38,043 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,7107 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6835 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,6101 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,106 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,8215 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,1181 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 330,79 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 7,9695 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2958

JPY

Japanese yen

134,71

DKK

Danish krone

7,4435

GBP

Pound sterling

0,6883

SEK

Swedish krona

9,0853

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5591

ISK

Iceland króna

81,48

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,292

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9557

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,583

CZK

Czech koruna

29,963

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

243,79

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,696

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4306

PLN

Polish zloty

3,981

ROL

Romanian leu

37 385

SIT

Slovenian tolar

239,72

SKK

Slovak koruna

38,043

TRY

Turkish lira

1,7107

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6835

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,6101

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,106

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,8215

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,1181

KRW

South Korean won

1 330,79

ZAR

South African rand

7,9695

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
# C_2005006EN.01003902.xml

| 8.1.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.1.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/39

---

Action brought on 4 October 2004 by SOFFASS S.p.A. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

(Case T-396/04)

(2005/C 6/77)

Language of the case: Italian

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 4 October 2004 by SOFFASS S.p.A., represented by Vincenzo Biliardo and Cristiano Bacchini, lawyers.

The other party to the proceedings before the appeal board was: SODIPAN (Société en Commandite par Actions).

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the OHIM First Board of Appeal of 16 June 2004 in Case R-699/2003-1; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the OHIM First Board of Appeal of 16 June 2004 in Case R-699/2003-1;

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

—

Order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

| Applicant for Community trade mark: | The applicant |
| --- | --- |
| Community trade mark considered: | Figurative mark ‘NICKY’ – Application No 1 315 985 for products in Class 16 (Paper, cardboard and goods made from these materials, for household and cleaning purposes). |
| Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: | The French company SODIPAN (Société en Commandite par Actions). |
| Mark or sign cited in opposition. | Figurative French marks ‘NOKY’ (No 1 346 586) and ‘noky’ (No 1 400 192) for products in Class 16. |
| Decision of the Opposition Division: | Opposition dismissed. |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Annulment of the Opposition Division decision, the matter being referred back to it for reconsideration. |
| Pleas in law: | Misapplication of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (likelihood of confusion). |

Applicant for Community trade mark:

The applicant

Community trade mark considered:

Figurative mark ‘NICKY’ – Application No 1 315 985 for products in Class 16 (Paper, cardboard and goods made from these materials, for household and cleaning purposes).

Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

The French company SODIPAN (Société en Commandite par Actions).

Mark or sign cited in opposition.

Figurative French marks ‘NOKY’ (No 1 346 586) and ‘noky’ (No 1 400 192) for products in Class 16.

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Opposition dismissed.

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Annulment of the Opposition Division decision, the matter being referred back to it for reconsideration.

Pleas in law:

Misapplication of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (likelihood of confusion).

---
Exhibit 32.1





MUNICIPAL MORTGAGE & EQUITY, LLC

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 on of Municipal Mortgage
& Equity, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (the “Company”), on Form 10-Q for the period ended September
30, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Lisa Roberts ,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



| | (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.



Date: November 14, 2012

| |                                                
| | -----------------------------------------------
| | /s/ Michael L. Falcone                         
| | Michael L. Falcone                             
| | Chief Executive Officer, President and Director
| |                                                



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906
has been provided to Municipal Mortgage & Equity, LLC and will be retained by Municipal Mortgage & Equity, LLC and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
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 Daou Systems, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
John A. Roberts, Acting Chief Financial Officer and Secretary 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:



| | (3) |  | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | (4) |  | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|/s/    JOHN A. ROBERTS                                      
|------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                            
|John A. Roberts Acting Chief Financial Officer and Secretary



August 14, 2003



1
## 13 .... -. --A.. OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS : AUSTIN -b
**Exhibit 10.19**

 

**Silicon Valley Bank**

 

**AMENDMENT TO LOAN DOCUMENTS**

 

 

**THISAMENDMENT TO LOAN DOCUMENTS** is entered into between Silicon Valley Bank (“Silicon”) and the borrower named above (“Borrower”). 

 

The Parties agree to amend the Loan and Security Agreement between them, dated February 14, 2002 (as otherwise amended, if at all, the“Loan Agreement”), as follows, effective as of the date hereof. (Capitalized terms used but not defined in this Amendment shall have the meanings set forth in the Loan Agreement.) 

 

1.     **Modified MaturityDate.**    The Maturity Date set forth in Section 4 of the Schedule to Loan and Security Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows: 

 

**4. MATURITY DATE**

(Section 6.1):                     March 31, 2003. 

 

2.    **Fee.**    In consideration for Silicon entering into this Amendment, Borrower shall concurrently pay Silicon a fee in the amount of $9,375, which shall be non-refundable and in addition to all interest and other fees payableto Silicon under the Loan Documents. Silicon is authorized to charge said fee to Borrower’s loan account. 

 

3.    **Representations True.**    Borrower represents and warrants to Silicon that allrepresentations and warranties set forth in the Loan Agreement, as amended hereby, are true and correct. 

 

4.    **General Provisions.**    This Amendment, the Loan Agreement, any prior writtenamendments to the Loan Agreement signed by Silicon and Borrower, and the other written documents and agreements between Silicon and Borrower set forth in full all of the representations and agreements of the parties with respect to the subjectmatter hereof and supersede all prior discussions, representations, agreements and understandings between the parties with respect to the subject hereof. Except as herein expressly amended, all of the terms and provisions of the Loan Agreement, andall other documents and agreements between Silicon and Borrower shall continue in full force and effect and the same are hereby ratified and confirmed. 

 

**Borrower:**

 

**ONYX SOFTWARE CORPORATION**

 
   
**Silicon:**

 

**SILICON VALLEY BANK**

 

By:
 
/s/    JAMES O.BECK        
   
By:
 
/s/    SHANEANDERSON        
  
Treasurer
   
Title:
 
Portfolio Manager

 

By:
 
/s/    PAUL B.DAUBER        
        
Secretary or Ass’t Secretary
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARGARITA CARDENAS DE

CASTANEDA; FRANCISCO

CASTANEDA CARDENAS; HUBER

CASTANEDA CARDENAS; REYNA

CASTANEDA CARDENAS,

 Petitioners,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 07-73072

Agency Nos. A095-194-893

A095-447-210

A095-449-448

A095-449-449

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 11, 2011 

Pasadena, California

Before: FERNANDEZ, RYMER, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

Margarita Cardenas de Castaneda and three of her children, all natives and

FILED

JUL 13 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
citizens of Mexico, petition for review of a BIA decision denying their motion to

reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.

Petitioners failed to exhaust their sole claim, ineffective assistance of

counsel, by raising that issue before the BIA in a motion to reopen. As a prudential

matter, when such claims relate to attorney conduct that occurred prior to and

during the removal proceedings, as they do here, “the BIA [is] the appropriate

body to first pass on the claims in order to generate a proper record for review.” 

Puga v. Chertoff, 488 F.3d 812, 815 (9th Cir. 2007). Though petitioners may not

have realized they had such a claim until their new counsel was appointed, the

period to file a motion to reopen may be equitably tolled during periods where

petitioners are receiving ineffective assistance of counsel. Iturribarria v. INS, 321

F.3d 889, 898 (9th Cir. 2003). We therefore deny the petition.

DENIED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET (JUNE 30, 1996) CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT
OF OPERATIONS (JUNE 30, 1996) CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF CASH
FLOWS (FEBRUARY 9 THROUGH JUNE 30, 1996).
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                            7248
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   133990
<ALLOWANCES>                                      3137
<INVENTORY>                                      39234
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                208542
<PP&E>                                            7452
<DEPRECIATION>                                     379
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  225747
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           180599
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         10
<COMMON>                                            20
<OTHER-SE>                                       34683
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    225747
<SALES>                                         336505
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                336505
<CGS>                                           287566
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   325181
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  2230
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   369
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                2337
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   9094
<INCOME-TAX>                                      4865
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               4229
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      4229
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     3.43
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     3.43
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 17 (Tuesday, January 27, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 4331]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-01448]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 9012]


Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``Ireland: Crossroads of Art and Design, 1690-1840''

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, and Delegation of Authority No. 
236-3 of August 28, 2000 (and, as appropriate, Delegation of Authority 
No. 257 of April 15, 2003), I hereby determine that the objects to be 
included in the exhibition ``Ireland: Crossroads of Art and Design, 
1690-1840,'' imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the 
United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported 
pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I 
also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at 
the Art Institute of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, from on or about March 
17, 2015, until on or about July 7, 2015, and at possible additional 
exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national 
interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these Determinations be 
published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of the imported objects, contact Paul W. Manning, Attorney-
Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State 
(telephone: 202-632-6469). The mailing address is U.S. Department of 
State, SA-5, L/PD, Fifth Floor (Suite 5H03), Washington, DC 20522-0505.

    Dated: January 16, 2015.
Kelly Keiderling,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and 
Cultural Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2015-01448 Filed 1-26-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
NRCS CONSERVATION PRACTICE EFFECTS - NETWORK DIAGRAM September 2020

Initial setting: Row crops that are subject 

to sheet and rill erosion and control of 

row grades is needed for water 

management within the field

I.7 (-) Sediment and 

sediment-borne 

contaminants

C.2 (+) Quality of 

surface waters 

and aquatic 

habitats

I.1 (+) Labor costs

C.1 (+/-) Income and 

income stability 

(individuals and 

community)

1.3 (-) Sheet and rill 

erosion

2. Reduced row grade

D.2 (+) Cost of 

installation and 

maintenance; 

(+) time and skills 

required

Row Arrangement (557)

I.11 (-) Water-borne 

contaminants to 

surface waters

I.5 (+) Crop 

production

1. Modified row direction

Note: 

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.

D.4 (-) Runoff 

velocity

D.3 (+) 

Equipment 

restrictions

D.5 (+) Water 

infiltration

I.10 (-) Runoff 

volume

I.2 (+/-) Net returns to producer

I.4 (+) 

Soil 

quality

C.3 (+/-) Fishable and 

swimmable waters; 

(+/-) health and safety 

issues for humans, 

domestic and wild 

animals

I.6 (+) Potential 

income

I.8 (-) 

Sedimentation 

I.9 (-) On and offsite 

maintenance costs for 

sediment removal 

I.12 (+) Potential for waterborne contaminant transport to 

ground waters

Nutrient Management (590)

Pest Management Conservation System (595)

I.13 (+/-) 

Quality of 

ground 

waters

LEGEND

#. Created by practice

D. Direct effect

I. Indirect effect

C. Cumulative effect

Pathway

Mitigating practice

Associated practice

D.1 (+) Efficient 

Use of Water/ 

Irrigation and 

Rainfall

Irrigation Water Management (449)

Terrace (660)

 Start
Adams, Kevin (OST) 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Subject: 

Mr. Adams, 

Chris Gill <cgill@gci.com> 

Wednesday, June 26, 2013 7:43 PM 

Adams, Kevin (OST} 

Tatitlek EAS comment 

I send this email to you in support of Reeve Air Alaska's proposal to provide air service to Tatilek, Alaska. 

I am currently Director of Project Management & Implementation for GCI Communications. In this position both myself 

and my teams of managers and technicians have utilized Reeve's services. I find Mike Reeve to be a very competent and 

safe pilot providing reliable service at competitive rates. Additionally, as a fellow pilot, I respect Mikes skill, experience, 

and professionalism. 

I encourage you to choose Reeve Air Alaska to provide air service to Tatilek, Alaska. 

Feel free to call me directly with any questions. 

Chris Gill 

Director, GCI Project Management and Implementation 

Desk: (907) 868-7098 

Cell: 227-9352 

email: cgill@gci.com 

1 

1J