alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2004314EN.01000801.xml

| 18.12.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.12.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/8

---

Action brought on 28 October 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-454/04)

(2004/C 314/15)

An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 28 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 2001/55/EC of 20 July 2001 on minimum standards for giving temporary protection in the event of a mass influx of displaced persons and on measures promoting a balance of efforts between Member States in receiving such persons and bearing the consequences thereof (1) or, in any event, by failing to inform the Commission of them, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg 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 2001/55/EC of 20 July 2001 on minimum standards for giving temporary protection in the event of a mass influx of displaced persons and on measures promoting a balance of efforts between Member States in receiving such persons and bearing the consequences thereof (1) or, in any event, by failing to inform the Commission of them, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

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 transposing the directive into national law expired on 31 December 2002.

---

(1)  
  OJ L 212 of 7.8.2001, p. 12.

1

---
# C_2004156EN.01000702.xml

| 12.6.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.6.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/7

---

Appeal brought on 23 April 2004 by Graham French, John Neiger and Michael Leighton against the order made on 20 February 2004 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in case T-319/03 between Graham French, John Steven Neiger, Michael Leighton, John Frederick Richard Pascoe, Richard Micklethwait, Ruth Margaret Micklethwait and the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-190/04 P)

(2004/C 156/15)

An appeal against the order made on 20 February 2004 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in case T-319/03 between Graham French, John Steven Neiger, Michael Leighton, John Frederick Richard Pascoe, Richard Micklethwait, Ruth Margaret Micklethwait and the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities, was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 23 April 2004 by Graham French, John Neiger and Michael Leighton, represented by J.S. Barnett, Solicitor-Advocate.

The Appellants claim that the Court should:

| 1) | set aside the order; |
| --- | --- |

1)

set aside the order;

| 2) | grant the relief sought by the Appellants in the form of the draft order annexed to the Application; alternatively |
| --- | --- |

2)

grant the relief sought by the Appellants in the form of the draft order annexed to the Application; alternatively

| 3) | remit the case to the Court of First Instance; and in any event |
| --- | --- |

3)

remit the case to the Court of First Instance; and in any event

| 4) | order the Defendants to pay the Appellants' costs. |
| --- | --- |

4)

order the Defendants to pay the Appellants' costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The Appellants contend that the Court of First Instance erred in law when it found that, as regards the Defendants' allegedly unlawful conduct, they (the Applicants) did not specify the primary rule of law which the Defendants are alleged to have broken or infringed. The Appellants submit that the Defendants' failure was set out clearly in their application.

---
# C_2004300EN.01002402.xml

| 4.12.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 300/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.12.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 300/24

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 7 October 2004

in Case C-550/03: Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (1)

1

(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directives 2001/12/EC, 2001/13/EC and 2001/14/EC - Community's railways - Development - Licensing of railway undertakings - Allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

(2004/C 300/50)

Language of the case: Greek

In Case C-550/03: Commission of the European Communities (Agents: W. Wils and G. Zavvos) v Hellenic Republic (Agent: N. Dafniou) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 23 December 2003 — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, acting as the President of the Sixth Chamber, S. von Bahr and U. Lõhmus (Rapporteur), Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 7 October 2004, in which it:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 amending Council Directive 91/440/EEC on the development of the Community's railways, Directive 2001/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 amending Council Directive 95/18/EC on the licensing of railway undertakings, and Directive 2001/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under those directives. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 amending Council Directive 91/440/EEC on the development of the Community's railways, Directive 2001/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 amending Council Directive 95/18/EC on the licensing of railway undertakings, and Directive 2001/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under those directives.

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

2.

Orders the Hellenic Republic is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 59 of 3.2.2004.

1

---
Motion Granted; Order filed December 6, 2012.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 12

- 01049

- CV

____________ JAMES L. DOYLE , Appellant

V.
FLEMING & ASSOCIATES , L.L.P. , Appellee

On Appeal from the 295th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2007

- 45728



### ORDER

On November 29 , 20 12 , the parties notified this court that the y are attempting to reach an agreement to settle the issues on appeal, and requested that the appeal be abated for completion of the settlement. The motion is granted. Accordingly, we issue the following order.

The appeal is abated, treated as a clos ed case, and removed from this c ourt’s active
docket until February 4, 2013 . The appeal will be reinsta ted on this c ourt’s active docket at that time, or when the parties file a motion to dismiss the appeal or other dispositivemotion. The c ourt will also consider an appropriate motion to reinstate the appeal filed

by either party, or the c ourt may reinsta te the appeal on its own motion.

PER CURIAM
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.13

                         EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT


         This Employment Agreement Amendment ("Amendment") dated and effective
as of December 1, 1998 is entered into by and between American Residential
Services, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company") and Terri L. Hardt (the
"Employee").

         WHEREAS, the Company and the Employee are parties to that certain
Employment Agreement dated as of April 28, 1997, (the "Employment Agreement"),
and;

         WHEREAS, the Company and Employee desire to amend Section 4 of the
Employment Agreement, entitled Term.

         NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and covenants
contained herein and for such other good and valuable consideration, the receipt
and adequacy of which is hereby acknowledged, the Company and Employee hereby
agree as follows:

         1. Section 4 of the Employment Agreement, entitled Term, is hereby
amended by replacing the entirety thereof with the following text:

                  4.  Term.

                           The term of the Employee's employment under this
                  Agreement shall commence on the date of this Agreement and
                  shall end, without the necessity of any further action by any
                  person, on April 28, 2000. Such term is referred to herein as
                  the "Employment Term".

         2. All terms and conditions of the Employment Agreement which are
unaffected by this Amendment shall remain in full force and effect.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company and the Employee have executed this
Amendment effective as of the date first above written.

AMERICAN RESIDENTIAL SERVICES, INC.              EMPLOYEE



-------------------------------                  --------------------------
     John D. Held                                      Terri L. Hardt
     Senior Vice President
# C_2005042EN.01001401.xml

| 18.2.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 42/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.2.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 42/14

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.3697 — SYMANTEC/VERITAS)

(2005/C 42/03)

(Text with EEA relevance)

| 1. | On 9 February 2005, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking Symantec Corporation (‘Symantec’), USA, acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation control of the whole of the undertaking Veritas Software Corporation (‘Veritas’), USA, by way of purchase of shares. |
| --- | --- |

1.

On 9 February 2005, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking Symantec Corporation (‘Symantec’), USA, acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation control of the whole of the undertaking Veritas Software Corporation (‘Veritas’), USA, by way of purchase of shares.

1

| 2. | The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






  — | for undertaking Symantec: Security software, |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

—

for undertaking Symantec: Security software,

| — | for undertaking Veritas: Data protection and storage software. |
| --- | --- |

—

for undertaking Veritas: Data protection and storage software.

| 3. | On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. |
| --- | --- |

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.

| 4. | The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
  Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (No (32-2) 296 43 01 or 296 72 44) or by post, under reference number COMP/M.3697 — SYMANTEC/VERITAS, to the following address:





  European Commission |
| --- | --- |
| Directorate-General for Competition, |
| Merger Registry |
| J-70 |
| B-1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |

4.

The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (No (32-2) 296 43 01 or 296 72 44) or by post, under reference number COMP/M.3697 — SYMANTEC/VERITAS, to the following address:

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition,

Merger Registry

J-70

B-1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 219 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.219

                     One Hundred Fifteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

         Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
           the third day of January, two thousand and eighteen

                                 An Act

 
 To correct the Swan Lake hydroelectric project survey boundary and to 
  provide for the conveyance of the remaining tract of land within the 
            corrected survey boundary to the State of Alaska.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
    This Act may be cited as the ``Swan Lake Hydroelectric Project 
Boundary Correction Act''.
SEC. 2. CONVEYANCE OF FEDERAL LAND WITHIN THE SWAN LAKE HYDROELECTRIC 
PROJECT BOUNDARY.
    Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act, 
the Secretary of the Interior, after consultation with the Secretary of 
Agriculture, shall--
        (1) survey the exterior boundaries of the tract of Federal land 
    within the project boundary of the Swan Lake Hydroelectric Project 
    (FERC No. 2911) as generally depicted and labeled ``Lost Creek'' on 
    the map entitled ``Swan Lake Project Boundary--Lot 2'' and dated 
    February 1, 2016; and
        (2) issue a patent to the State of Alaska for the tract 
    described in paragraph (1) in accordance with--
            (A) the survey authorized under paragraph (1);
            (B) section 6(a) of the Act of July 7, 1958 (commonly known 
        as the ``Alaska Statehood Act'') (48 U.S.C. note prec. 21; 
        Public Law 85-508); and
            (C) section 24 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 818).

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
#### Collins *v.*Dickinson and Allen.

A partition, in a partnership concern, is matter of right, anil may he called for at any time.

Bill in Equity, stating a partnership entered into by the Complainant and Defendants in the year 1784, for the purpose of entering, securing and improving the lands in Lake Phelps, and the lands adjoining thereto, and for the purpose of draining and preparing them for cultivation. The hill states many tracts of laud secured, thelakrv drained, houses and mills built, and that the Complainant has advanced much beyond his proportion — the bill prays a partition of the lands, and that the Defendants he decreed to account for and pay to him the overplus of his disbursements.

They pleaded generally, that the purposes for which the company associated were not yet completed, and *276that such a division as that prayed for, will be ruinous to them should it take place, as each of them separately, would rmt be able to manage the business so as to derive any profit from it. The account, was referred to the Master, and he had made his report to the present term. On the plea, it was argued by Hamilton. for the Complainant., that, a partner may call for a partition whenever he thinks proper; that he is not obliged to continue his property in the joint concern longer than he is satisfied with the proceedings of the company, and that the difficulty of making a partition, or the inconveniences it will produce to any of the parties, is not of any consideration with the court. He cited 1789, c. 24, s. 1. *JLnbler*236, 590. *% Eq. Cas. M.*629, 630. 1 *L. Bay*536. *Hob.*179. 16 *Pin. M.*219, 240, 221. 2 *Ch. Cas'*237.-On the other side were cited, *Watsonss Law of Partn,*398, 399. *Moll.*460. *Lex Merc.*SI- And it was insisted there must be the consent of all to dissolve a partnership. if one wishes to withdraw before the expiration of the time appointed for the company’s continuance; ajid that when a partner does withdraw that should be done *bona fide,*not where it may occasion a damage to the partner ship, as it would do in the present case; nor should it be done with any sinister view.

*Per curiam*

A partition is matter of right, therefore let it be decreed : and let the Complainant have a decree for monies reported due to him ; and let commissioners be appointed to niake the partition, and return their proceedings to next term, with maps or plats of the same. A decree was entered accordingly for these purposes.
Opinion issued November 2 1 , 2017

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01 - 1 7 - 0 0 4 3 4 - CV

——————————— MARTHA E. AYALA RODRIGUEZ , Appellant

V. MARIBEL SANCHEZ , Appellee

O n Appeal from the 234 t h District Court

H a rri s County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2015 - 68702 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Martha E. Ayala Rodriguez , ha s failed to timely file h er appellate brief. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 38.6( a ), (d) , 38.8(a)(1). Further, a ppellant ha s neither paid the required filing fee nor established indigence for purposes of appellate costs. See id. 5, 20.1; see also T EX . G OV ’ T C ODE A NN . §§ 51.207, 51.941(a), 101.041(1) (West2

201 6 ); Order, Fe es Charged in t he Supreme Court , in Civil Cases in the Courts of Appeals , and Before the Judicial Panel on Multi

- D istrict Litigation, Misc. Docket No. 15

- 91 58 (Tex. Aug. 28 , 20 15 )
. After being notified by this Court’s October 10, 2017 Order and Notice of Intent to Dismiss for Want of Prosecution that this appeal was subject to dismissal for failure to pay the required fee and to file the appellant’s brief within t hirty days of the date of that ord e r , a ppellant failed to timely respond. See id. 5, 38.8(a)(1), 42.3 (b), ( c )
. Accordingly, w e dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution for failure to timely file a brief and for failure to pay all required fees
. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 5, 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b), (c). PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Brown, and Lloyd
.
EXHIBIT 99.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

I, Paul Quadros, Chief Financial Officer of GenStar Therapeutics Corporation (the Registrant), do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that to my knowledge:

| | (1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Registrant, to which this certification is attached as an exhibit (the Report), fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and
| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          
| | (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant for the periods covered by
the Report.                                                        



|Dated: November 14, 2002 |                                         | 
|------------------------ | --------------------------------------- | 
|                         |                                         | 
|                         |                                         | 
|                         | /s/ PAUL D. QUADROS                     | 
|                         |                                         | 
|                         | Paul D. Quadros Chief Financial Officer |
# Materials Not Included in **Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket**

Docket Number: FAA- 2011 -0257 Directorate Identifier: 2010NM122AD

ALI AI/SE - M2/95A.1038/99, I02 --- 3/09 ALI AI/SE - M2/95A.1038/99, I01 --- 8/2/99

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the Supplemental AD Docket 

### MA **Y BE VIEWED AT:** Federal Aviatio n Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate Rules Docket 1601 Lind Ave. SW., Renton, WA 98057 425.227.1221 **DURING THE HOURS OF:** 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Form Date: 03/05/2008
# C_2004314EN.01001004.xml

| 18.12.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.12.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/10

---

Removal from the register of Case C-186/03 P (1)

(2004/C 314/23)

By order of 23 September 2004 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-186/03 P: Strabag Benelux NV v Council of the European Union.

---

(1)  
  OJ C 213 of 6.9.2003.

1

---
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. 333-141373, 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, 2008,
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, 2007.

|                                     |  | /s/ERNST & YOUNG LLP
|------------------------------------ |  | --------------------
|Boston, Massachusetts
March 12, 2008 |  |                     

---



QuickLinks
#### Klug, Respondent, vs. Eickelberg, Appellant.

For the appellant: *George A. Hartman*of Juneau and *Clark & Lueck*of Beaver Dam.

For the respondent: *Grady, Farnsworth & Walker*of Portage.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.