alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2005038EN.01000701.xml

| 15.2.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/7

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.3644 — Viterra/Deutschbau)

(2005/C 38/05)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 17 December 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 German 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/). 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/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32004M3644. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32004M3644. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

---
##### 



EXHIBIT 10.8(n) FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE
STERLING CHEMICALS, INC.
AMENDED AND RESTATED
SALARIED EMPLOYEES PENSION PLAN WITNESSETH WHEREAS, Sterling Chemicals, inc. (the Employer) presently maintains the Sterling Chemicals,
Inc. Amended and Restated Salaried Employees Pension Plan, effective as of May 1, 1996 (the
Plan); and WHEREAS, the Employer, pursuant to Section 15.1 of the Plan, has the right to amend the Plan
from time to time subject to certain limitations: NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended in the following manner: Effective as of November 9, 2004, Section 4.5 of the Plan is hereby amended to add the
following paragraph to read as follows: Notwithstanding the above, a participant who (a) is at least 50 years of age as of November 9,
2004, (b) is involuntarily terminated other than for cause during the period beginning on November
9, 2004 and ending on December 31, 2004, and (c) executes a release in form and substance
satisfactory to the Company prior to February 15, 2005, may at any time after attaining 55 years of
age commence payment of his Monthly Retirement Income on his or her Early Retirement Date, without
application of the early retirement reduction described in the preceding paragraph. Effective as of January 1, 2005, the Plan is amended to freeze benefit accrual. Benefit
accrual will cease for all Participants, by computing their Accrued Benefits as of January 1, 2005,
as if they had terminated from service on such date. This amount shall be referred to as the
Frozen Benefit. Each Participant may continue to accrue Vesting Service after January 1, 2005,
in accordance with the existing provisions of the Plan, in order to vest in his Frozen Benefit and
for benefit eligibility purposes. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Employer has executed this Amendment, this day of , 2004. STERLING CHEMICALS, INC.ByName:Title
# C_2005106EN.01001901.xml

| 30.4.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 106/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.4.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 106/19

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam by judgment of that court of 18 February 2005 in the proceedings between ASM Lithography B.V. and Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane Zuid/kantoor Roermond

(Case C-100/05)

(2005/C 106/35)

Language of the case: Dutch

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by judgment of the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam (Amsterdam Regional Court of Appeal) (Netherlands) of 18 February 2005, received at the Court Registry on 28 February 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between ASM Lithography B.V. and Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane Zuid/kantoor Roermond (Tax Inspectorate/Customs South, Roermond office) on the following question:

| 1. | With regard to compensating products such as those here in issue [point 2.1. of the reference for a preliminary ruling], which are considered to have been released for free circulation, must the customs debt be determined on the basis of the rules of assessment referred to in Article 122(c) of the Community Customs Code (CCC) (1) even where the person concerned has made no prior and express request in that regard? |
| --- | --- |

1.

With regard to compensating products such as those here in issue [point 2.1. of the reference for a preliminary ruling], which are considered to have been released for free circulation, must the customs debt be determined on the basis of the rules of assessment referred to in Article 122(c) of the Community Customs Code (CCC) (1) even where the person concerned has made no prior and express request in that regard?

1

| 2. | If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative, is it necessary to grant a subsequent application — after notification of the amount by way of duty arising from the customs debt which is determined on the basis of the rules of assessment referred to in Article 121(1) of the CCC — for (re)calculation of the amount of customs debt on the basis of the rules of assessment referred to in Article 122(c) of the CCC which is made in connection with an application for repayment pursuant to Article 236 of the CCC? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative, is it necessary to grant a subsequent application — after notification of the amount by way of duty arising from the customs debt which is determined on the basis of the rules of assessment referred to in Article 121(1) of the CCC — for (re)calculation of the amount of customs debt on the basis of the rules of assessment referred to in Article 122(c) of the CCC which is made in connection with an application for repayment pursuant to Article 236 of the CCC?

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ L 302 of 19 October 1992, p. 1).

1

---
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

                                 Certification


In connection with the periodic report of Optika Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-K/A for the period ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Mark K. Ruport, President and Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely
for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code,
that to the best of my knowledge:

                  (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
                  13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods
                  indicated.

This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, "filed" with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.


            March 17, 2004                /s/ Mark K. Ruport
    ---------------------------     ----------------------------------
              (Date)                          Mark K. Ruport
                                    President, Chief Executive Officer
                                         and Chairman of the Board
# C_2004300EN.01001102.xml

| 4.12.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 300/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.12.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 300/11

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Third Chamber)

of 12 October 2004

in Case C-328/02: Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic (1)

1

(Failure to fulfil obligations - Agriculture - Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92 - Integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes)

(2004/C 300/22)

Language of the case: Greek

In Case C-328/02: Commission of the European Communities (Agent: M. Condou-Durande) v the Hellenic Republic (Agents: V. Kontolaimos and I. Chalias) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 18 September 2002 — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of A. Rosas, President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet, F. Macken (Rapporteur), J. Malenovský and U. Lõhmus, Judges; Advocate General: P. Léger, Registrar: L. Hewlett, has given a judgment on 12 October 2004, in which it:

| 1) | Declares that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to implement completely Article 2(a) and (e) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92 of 27 November 1992 establishing an integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that regulation. |
| --- | --- |

1)

Declares that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to implement completely Article 2(a) and (e) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92 of 27 November 1992 establishing an integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that regulation.

| 2) | Dismisses the remainder of the action. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Dismisses the remainder of the action.

| 3) | Orders the Commission of the European Communities and the Hellenic Republic to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3)

Orders the Commission of the European Communities and the Hellenic Republic to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 261 of 26.10.2002.

1

---
# C_2004260EN.01000402.xml

| 22.10.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 260/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.10.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 260/4

---

Corrigenda to calls for proposals for indirect RTD actions under the specific programme for research, technological development and demonstration: ‘Structuring the European Research Area’

(
  OJ C 315 of 17 December 2002
  and corrigendum
  OJ C 227 of 23 September 2003
  )

(
  OJ C 315 of 17 December 2002

OJ C 227 of 23 September 2003

(2004/C 260/05)

On page 72, in section 6:

for:

‘14 October 2004’,

read:

‘19 October 2004’;

On page 73, in section 6:

for:

‘14 October 2004’,

read:

‘19 October 2004’.

---
ELECTRONIC RECORD I3ZH45

COA# 09-15-00315-CR OFFENSE: CREDIT CARD ABUSE

STYLE: johnson, beulah lee COUNTY: Jefferson

COA DISPOSITION: DISMJR TRIAL COURT: Criminal District Court

DATE: 08/31/2015 Publish: NO TC CASE #: 14-20109

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

STYLE: JOHNSON, BEULAH LEE v.

fl\D ££ Petition CCA Disposition:

FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS: DATE:

b\$rtl$S£b f\S OtiTIMZLy JUDGE:

DATF: Id(2%IZOI<3 SIGNED: PC:

JUDGE: y^L LuAM^^ PUBLISH: DNP:

MOTION FOR

REHEARING IN CCA IS:

JUDGE:

ELECTRONIC RECORD
EXHIBIT 32.1

CALIPER LIFE SCIENCES, INC.  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 Caliper Life Sciences, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, E. Kevin Hrusovsky, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company certify, pursuant to the
requirement set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act") and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, that:



|                     |  | /s/E. KEVIN HRUSOVSKYE. Kevin Hrusovsky President and Chief Executive
Officer
|-------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: March 14, 2008 |  |                                                                              

---



QuickLinks
#### Hewitt and another, Respondents, vs. Andrews and others, Appellants.

For the appellants: *Bundy, Beach •& Holland*of Eau Claire.

For the respondents: *WMiami E. Thurston*of Durand, and *W. G. Haddow*of Ellsworth.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.
#### Standen v. Bains.

General reputation is admissible as evidence in cases of boundary.— Marked lines and corners may be established as the true one, although variant from the courses and distances mentioned in the deed.

Trespass, *qnare clausum fregit.*Not guilty, *liberum tenementum,*&c. pleaded. The Plaintiff claimed under *Srkill,*who patented a tract of land in the year ¡740, extending, as he alleged, to a line distinguished in the plat, by the name of the doited line. The courses and distances mentioned in the patent extended not. so far; but only to a line distinguished in the" piar by the wtme of the black line. The Defendant entered this intermediate tract in the year 1784, and took possession — whereupon, the Plaintiff brought his action. The court permitted evidence to be given, that the dotted line, which was a marked one, bad for a loug time since the year 1740 been reputed the line of *Jlr kill’s*tract — the patent called for a gum standing iri *Robert’s*line; this gum was found at the termination of the dotted line. It next called for two lines of *Roberts’*tract, the dotted line was upon these two lines. It next called for *Hoskin’s*corner : the dotted line went, to that corner, and there was nothing to prove the black line to be the true one, but course and distance. There was no witness who could prove positively, that the doited line was the line of *Arkill’s*tract. •

*Per curiam,*

the mistake of a surveyor in describing or laying down the boundaries of the land patented, should not prejudice the patentee, if the jury are satisfied that the marked line was the true one, although the distances *274thereof will not correspond with the. distances in the patent — therefore in the present case, the jury may consider whether there is suiiicient evidence to satisfy them, that this dotted line was (he real boundary, though not truly described in the patent j and if they think, so, then to find for the Plaintiff. The eourt then recapitulated the circumstances above mentioned, as affording a proof of this being the. true line, rather than the other, and the jury under their direction found for the Plaintiff.

*Note.*— Vide note to *Bradford*v. *Hill, ante*22.
# C_2005082EN.01002402.xml

| 2.4.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 82/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.4.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 82/24

---

Action brought on 15 February 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-74/05)

(2005/C 82/49)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 15 February 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Nicola Yerrell, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

| 1. | declare that, by not adopting all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2000/79/EC of 27 November 2000 concerning the European Agreement on the Organisation of Working Time of Mobile Workers in Civil Aviation concluded by the Association of European Airlines (AEA), the European Transport Workers' Federation (ETF), the European Cockpit Association (ECA), the European Regions Airline Association (ERA) and the International Air Carrier Association (IACA) (1) or ensuring that management and labour introduced the necessary measures by agreement and/or by not notifying the Commission of those provisions or measures, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty; |
| --- | --- |

1.

declare that, by not adopting all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2000/79/EC of 27 November 2000 concerning the European Agreement on the Organisation of Working Time of Mobile Workers in Civil Aviation concluded by the Association of European Airlines (AEA), the European Transport Workers' Federation (ETF), the European Cockpit Association (ECA), the European Regions Airline Association (ERA) and the International Air Carrier Association (IACA) (1) or ensuring that management and labour introduced the necessary measures by agreement and/or by not notifying the Commission of those provisions or measures, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty;

1

| 2. | order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for transposition of the directive into national law expired on 1 December 2003.

---

(1)  OJ No L 302, 1.12.2000, p. 57.

1

---
# C_2004217EN.01000401.xml

| 28.8.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/4

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Third Chamber)

of 1 July 2004

in Joined Cases C-361/02 and C-362/02 (references for a preliminary ruling from the the Diikitiko Efetio Piraeus): Elliniko Dimosio v Nikolaos Tsapalos and Konstantinos Diamantakis (1)

1

(Directive 76/308/EEC - Mutual assistance for the recovery of customs duties - Application to claims which arose prior to the entry into force of the Directive)

(2004/C 217/06)

Language of the case: Greek

In Joined Cases C-361/02 and C-362/02: references to the Court under Article 234 EC from the Diikitiko Efetio Piraeus (Greece) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between Elliniko Dimosio and Nikolaos Tsapalos (C-361/02), Konstantinos Diamantakis (C-362/02) — on the interpretation of Article 1 of Council Directive 76/308/EEC of 15 March 1976 on mutual assistance for the recovery of claims resulting from operations forming part of the system of financing the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund, and of the agricultural levies and customs duties, and in respect of value added tax and certain excise duties (OJ 1976 L 73, p. 18), as amended by the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden and the adjustment to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded (OJ 1994 C 241, p. 21) — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of: A. Rosas, President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) and N. Colneric, Judges; J. Kokott, Advocate General; M. Múgica Arzamendi, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 1 July 2004, in which it has ruled:

Council Directive 76/308/EEC of 15 March 1976 on mutual assistance for the recovery of claims resulting from operations forming part of the system of financing the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund, and of the agricultural levies and customs duties, and in respect of value added tax and certain excise duties as amended by the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded, is to be interpreted as applying to customs claims which arose in one Member State under an instrument issued by that State before that directive entered into force in the other Member State, where the requested authority is situated.

---

(1)  OJ C 305 of 7.12.2002.

1

---
HomeRadioactive WasteWaste Incidental to Reprocessing

# Section 3116 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (NDAA)

As set forth in Public Law 108-375, 2004, Section 3116, "Defense Site Acceleration Completion," establishes the following regulatory requirements, which ;are reproduced verbatim on this page:
        - In General
        - Monitoring by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
        - Inapplicability to Certain Materials
        - Covered States
        - Construction
        - Judicial Review

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Monday, June 8, 2020

Section Navigation

#### Navigation

          - Responsibilities for Waste Incidental to Reprocessing
          - Waste Determination Process
          - Disposal Process
          - National Defense Authorization Act
          - West Valley Demonstration Project Act

#### Spotlight

#### Choose a Section

                - The Commission
                - License Renewal Generic Environmental Review
                - Job Openings
                - Palisades Restart
                - Environmental Justice 
                - Pilgrim Water Releases
                - Monticello Tritium Issue
                - International Strategy 2021-2025
                - Tribal Liaison Program
                - MAP-X
                - Transformation at the NRC - Updated
                - OIG Hotline
                - Rulemaking Activity
                - Commission Documents
                - Advanced Reactors
                - Nuclear Security
                - Strategic Plan

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Monday, June 8, 2020
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We have issued our reports datedMarch 22, 2007 accompanying the financial statements and schedule (which report on the financial statements expressed an unqualified opinion and contains an explanatory paragraph for the change in accounting principle related to the adoption ofSFAS 123R S*hare-based*payment) included in the Annual Report of SRI/Surgical Express, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said reports in the RegistrationStatements of SRI/Surgical Express, Inc. on Forms S-8 (File No. 333-31911, effective July 23, 1997; File No. 333-67618, effective August 15, 2001; File No. 333-67626, effective August 15, 2001; and FileNo. 333-123616 effective March 28, 2005). 

/s/ GRANT THORNTON LLP 

Tampa, Florida 

March 22, 2007
# C_2004118EN.01003506.xml

| 30.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 118/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/35

---

Removal from the register of Case C- 392/03 (1)

1

(2004/C 118/72)

By order of 19 March 2004 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-392/03: Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic.

---

(1)  OJ C 264 of 1.11.2003.

1

---