alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2004262EN.01001103.xml

| 23.10.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.10.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/11

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 9 September 2004

in Case C-454/03: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (1)

1

(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Failure to transpose Directive 98/44/EC)

(2004/C 262/23)

Language of the case: French

In Case C-454/03: Commission of the European Communities (Agents: K. Banks) v Kingdom of Belgium (Agent: E. Dominkovits) — action for failure to fulfil obligations under Article 226 EC — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of Chamber, F. Macken (Rapporteur) and S. von Bahr, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R.Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 9 September 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

| 1. | By failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 98/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 1998 on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 15 of that directive. |
| --- | --- |

1.

By failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 98/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 1998 on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 15 of that directive.

| 2. | The Kingdom of Belgium is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Kingdom of Belgium is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 289 of 29.11.2003.

1

---
#### STATE v. JOHN RANDALL and others.

*Transcript of Record*— Power *of Superior Court.*

Omissions of material matter in the record of a trial for murder will be-supplied by certiorari, and the superior court has the power to order-such corrections as are necessary to make the record truthful.

*(State*v. Craton, 6 Ired., 164, cited and approved.)

Motion of prisoners for a *certiorari*beard at October Term,, 1882, of The Supreme Court.

The prisoners are indicted for murder, and were tried at Spring Term, 1882, of Buncombe Superior Court before-*Bennett,*J.

The jury returned'a verdict of guilty of manslaughter, and from the judgment pronounced, they appealed to this-court.

No statement of the case accompanies the record, and the prisoners in their petition for the *certiorari*state that numerous exceptions were taken during the progress of the trial, and ask that a transcript of the same, together with the record, be sent to- this court, to the end that they may be reviewed.

*Attorney General,*for the State.

*Messrs. Moore, McLoud, Carter*and *Johnston & Shuford,*for prisoners.

Smith, C. J.

In the examination of the record, we discover that it makes no mention of the arraignment of the prisoners, nor of their putting in any pleas to the charge preferred in the bill of indictment. This omission may result from the inadvertence of the clerk to make the proper entry upon his record, or in making out the transcript therefrom,, and presents a proper case for the award of the *572
      *certiorari*— the course pursued in *State*v. *Craton,*6 Ired., 164, for the correction of the name of the judge who tried the cause in the court below.

If the fact be that there was no arraignment, no opportunity afforded the prisoners to plead, and no pleas put in io make an issue for the jury, t'heir verdict is a nullity as well as the judgment rendered thereon.

In this aspect of the case, and as the prisoners ask it, we -shall direct the issuing of the *certiorari, to*the end that such .corrections may be made in the superior court as are necessary to make the record truthful, of which the court has the undoubted power, as declared by Chief Justice Ruffin’ in ,the case referred to, and that a transcript thereof be sent to this court.

Pee Cueiam. Motion allowed.
NO. SCPW-12-0000565 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I

MICHAEL TIERNEY, Petitioner,

vs. THE HONORABLE RICHARD K. PERKINS, JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT, STATE OF HAWAI # I, Respondent.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (S.P.P. No. 12-1-0011) ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, and McKenna, JJ. and Circuit Judge Kim, assigned by reason of vacancy) Upon consideration of Petitioner Michael Tierney's Motion for Reconsideration filed on July 16, 2012, the papers in support, and the records and files herein,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration is denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, August 3, 2012. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr. /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Glenn J. Kim Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-12-0000565 03-AUG-2012 09:28 AM
**EXHIBIT      10.23**

**Salary      and Bonus Information for Executive Officers**

| Name:                                           |   |   | Jan                W. Clark |   |   | John                G. Warner |   |   | Michael                T. Storm |   |   | Michael                L. Derr |   |
|-------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|-----------------------------|--------|--------|-------------------------------|--------|--------|---------------------------------|--------|--------|--------------------------------|--------|
|                                            |   |   |                        |   |   |                          |   |   |                            |   |   |                           |   |
| Salary                Effective January 1, 2005 |   | $      | 178,500                     |   | $      | 161,700                       |   | $      | 117,600                         |   | $      | 100,800                        |   |
| Bonus                paid in 2005:              |   | $      | 7,500                       |   | $      | 7,500                         |   | $      | 7,500                           |   | $      | 7,500                          |   |
|                                            |   |   |                        |   |   |                          |   |   |                            |   |   |                           |   |
| Salary                Effective January 1, 2006 |   | $      | 189,500                     |   | $      | 171,500                       |   | $      | 124,600                         |   | $      | 106,800                        |   |
| Bonus                paid in 2006:              |   | $      | 10,500                      |   | $      | 9,500                         |   | $      | 8,500                           |   | $      | 7,500                          |   |

----
Exhibit 31.2I, Paul G. Vanderhoven, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Sterling Chemicals, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared;(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.     Date: March 15, 2007           /s/ PAUL G. VANDERHOVEN Paul G. Vanderhoven    Senior Vice President — Finance and Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extractd from the financial
statements as of and for the three months ended March 31, 1999 included herein
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                                 200
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                            0
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                         0
<PP&E>                                             537,750
<DEPRECIATION>                                      90,468
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     466,732
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                    0
<BONDS>                                            305,201
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                                 0
<OTHER-SE>                                         144,767
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       466,732
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    24,163
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        6,889
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     6,179<F1>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   5,969
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      3,452
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  3,452
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       (345)
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                         2,628
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          .24
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          .24
        

</TABLE>
# C_2004118EN.01005102.xml

| 30.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 118/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/51

---

Action brought on 7 April 2004 by Cementir Cementerie del Tirreno spa against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-138/04)

(2004/C 118/111)

Language of the case: Italian

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 7 April 2004 by Cementir Cementerie del Tirreno spa, represented by Denis Fosselard and Piero Fattori, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision contained in the letter of 28 January 2004 inasmuch as it sets the default interest on the fine the applicant is required to pay at the sum of EUR 4 770 949,89 |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision contained in the letter of 28 January 2004 inasmuch as it sets the default interest on the fine the applicant is required to pay at the sum of EUR 4 770 949,89

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

In the contested decision, the Commission applied a fixed rate of 7.25 % to determine the default interest owed on the amount of the fine imposed on Cementir by Commission Decision 94/815/EC of 30 November 1994, as amended by the Court of First Instance in Case T-87/95 of 15 March 2000, and subsequently upheld by the Court of Justice of the European Communities in Case C-219/00 P of 7 January 2004.

The applicant contests the decision and bases its action on two grounds.

In the first ground, it pleads infringement of the general principles of Community law and in particular of the right to effective judicial protection, since the application of a fixed rate of 7.25 % for a period of nine years has produced an excessive and particularly onerous amount of interest. According to the applicant, the use of a fixed rate, calculated on the basis of the market situation in 1995, proves completely unreasonable when applied to an extremely long time period such as more than nine years. Further, in the period in question market rates have fallen considerably and that has brought about a situation in which Cementir's right to judicial protection has been subject to particularly onerous conditions.

In its second ground, the applicant asks the Court to annul the decision contained in the letter of 28 January 2004 on account of infringement of the principle of proportionality enshrined in Article 5 (ex Article 3b) of the EC Treaty. Cementir considers that the application of a variable rate of interest (increased by a reasonable spread) would be as effective in attaining the objectives pursued by the Commission, without imposing unjustified restrictions on the right to full judicial protection.

---
**Exhibit 32.1**





**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**


**PURSUANT
      TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





I,
      Gilbert Hu, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
      pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the
      Quarterly Report of AltiGen Communications, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the
      quarter ended June 30, 2006, fully complies with the requirements of
      Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
      information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents
      in
      all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of
      AltiGen Communications, Inc.








Date:
                August 14, 2006
            By:
            /s/
                Gilbert HuName:
            Gilbert
                HuTitle:
            Chief
                Executive Officer
# C_2004314EN.01000702.xml

| 18.12.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.12.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/7

---

Action brought on 27 October 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

(Case C-450/04)

(2004/C 314/13)

An action against the French Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 27 October 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by C. O'Reilly and A.-M. Rouchaud-Joët, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission of the European Communities claims that the Court should:

| 1. | declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions which are necessary in order to comply with Council Directive 2001/40/EC of 28 May 2001 on the mutual recognition of decisions on the expulsion of third country nationals (1) or, in any event, by failing to inform the Commission of them, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions which are necessary in order to comply with Council Directive 2001/40/EC of 28 May 2001 on the mutual recognition of decisions on the expulsion of third country nationals (1) or, in any event, by failing to inform the Commission of them, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

1

| 2. | order the French Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

order the French Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for transposing the directive into national law expired on 2 December 2002.

---

(1)  
  OJ L 149 of 2.6.2001, p. 34.

1

---
### January 17, 2013 FRRCC Webinar Attendance/Participant List
EPA HQ 1. John Reeder, Deputy Chief of Staff 2. Cynthia Jones

-Jackson, Act’g Director OFACMO 3. Mark Joyce, Associate Director for CMO/OFACMO

FRRCC Members (31) Steve Balling David Petty Peggy Beltrone Lori Berger George Boggs Richard Bonanno Dan Botts Charles (Chip) Bowling Sen. Mike Brubaker Robert Burns Robert Carlson Lawrence Clark James Ford Suzy Friedman Omar Garza Archie Hart Patrick Johnson Philip Korson Paul Martin Tom McDonald Janis McFarland Steve McNinch FRRCC Members (cont) Sec. Bill Northey Jennie Popp Anusuya Rangarajan Robert Rynning Larry Sanders Cheryl Shippentower Ann Sorensen Don Teske Dennis Treacy
EPA Regional Agricultural Advisors (19) Andrea Szylvian/R1/USEPA/US Robert Koethe/R1/USEPA/US Kristina Heinemann/R2/USEPA/US Kelly Shenk/CBP/USEPA/US Duane Robertson/R4/USEPA/US Thomas Davenport/R5/USEPA/US Gerald Winn/R5/USEPA/US Eugene Thilsted/R6/USEPA/US Damon Frizzell/R7/USEPA/US Rebecca Perrin/R8/USEPA/US Kerry Drake/R9/USEPA/US Don Hodge/R9/USEPA/US Karma Anderson/R10/USEPA/US James Werntz/R10/USEPA/US Nicholas Peak/R10/USEPA/US Robin Dunkins

– EPA RTP

### January 17, 2013 FRRCC Webinar Attendance/Participant List

Presenters Tom Christensen

- Regional Conservationist



### – Central Region USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service , **Lynda Hall**

–Chief Nonpoint Source Control Branch EPA Office of Water **Otto Doering**

– Agricultural Economist, Purdue University

Public Participants 1. Brandon Harder

– U.S. Senator Jerry Moran, Kansas Agriculture and Energy Policy 2. Nephi Cole

- Policy

Office of Governor Matt Mead, Cheyenne WY 3. Phil Walsack

- Missouri Public Utility Alliance (MPUA) 4. Jennifer Sackett Pohlenz

– Clark Hill, PLC 5. Justin Bieri the Central Colorado Water Conservancy District 6. David LaRoss Inside EPA 

### Other EPA Carol Galloway

– EPA R7 Ginah Mortensen EPA R7 Jana Compton EPA

- Cincinnati
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (File
No. 333-147571 and File No. 333-129192), and the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (File No. 333-156149, File
No. 333-141373, File No. 333-129861, File No. 333-117273, File No. 333-106946, File No. 333-106436, File
No. 333-91276, File No. 333-76636, File No. 333-69722, File No. 333-40466 and File No. 333-95007) of
Caliper Life Sciences, Inc. of our reports dated March 12, 2009, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Caliper Life Sciences, Inc., and the
effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Caliper Life Sciences, Inc., included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31,
2008.

/s/
Ernst & Young LLP

Boston,
Massachusetts
March 12, 2009

---



QuickLinks
# C_2005028EN.01000202.xml

| 4.2.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 28/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 28/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.3605 — Sovion/HMG)

(2005/C 28/03)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 21 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 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/). 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 32004M3605. 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 32004M3605. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

---
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED NO VEMBER 20, 2013

NO. 03

- 11

- 00468

- CV

Dannellia Gladden

- Green, Appellant

v.

Freescale Semiconductor, Inc., Appellee

APPEAL FROM 353RD DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY BEFORE CHIE F JUSTICE JONES, JUS TICES PEMBERTON AND ROSE

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE ROSE

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the record of the court below, and the same being

considered, it is the opinion of this Court that there was no error in the trial court’s ju dgment

. IT

IS THEREFORE ordered that the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed. It is

FURTHER ordered that the appellant pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and

the court below

, and that this decision be certified be low for observance.