alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2005057EN.01003602.xml

| 5.3.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 57/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.3.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 57/36

---

Action brought on 24 December 2004 by Stéphane Lopparelli against Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-502/04)

(2005/C 57/62)

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 24 December 2004 by Stéphane Lopparelli, residing in Brussels, represented by S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision on the award to the applicant of priority points for the 2003 promotion procedure and the decision not to include his name on the list of officials promoted to Grade A5 in that procedure; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision on the award to the applicant of priority points for the 2003 promotion procedure and the decision not to include his name on the list of officials promoted to Grade A5 in that procedure;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his action, the applicant relies, first, on breach of Articles 5, 7, 26, 43 and 45 of the Staff Regulations, and breach of the principle of correspondence between the grade and the post and the principle that officials should have reasonable career prospects. Secondly, the applicant pleads that no consideration of the comparative merits of all the officials of the same grade was carried out on a basis of equality, in breach of Articles 5, 7, 43 and 45 of the Staff Regulations and of the principle that officials should have reasonable career prospects.

---
# C_2005057EN.01000101.xml

| 5.3.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 57/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.3.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 57/1

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Full Court)

of 18 January 2005

in Case C-257/01: Commission of the European Communities v Council of the European Union (1)

1

(Regulations (EC) Nos 789/2001 and 790/2001 - Visa policy - Border checks and surveillance - Article 202 EC - Implementing powers reserved to the Council - Updating reserved to the Member States - Specific cases - Obligation to state reasons)

(2005/C 57/01)

Language of the case: English

In Case C-257/01: application for annulment under Article 230 EC, brought on 3 July 2001, Commission of the European Communities (Agents: D. Maidani and C. O'Reilly) supported by Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agent: H.G. Sevenster) v Council of the European Union (Agents: E. Finnegan and I. Díez Parra) supported by: Kingdom of Spain, (Agent: R. Silva de Lapuerta) – the Court (Full Court), composed of V. Skouris, President, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans, A. Rosas and K. Lenaerts, Presidents of Chambers, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), N. Colneric, S. von Bahr and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 18 January 2005, in which it:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 245 of 1.09.2001.

1

---
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

*Notice Is Hereby Given*                     that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) as Receiver for HarVest Bank of Maryland, Gaithersburg, Maryland, (“the Receiver”) intends to terminate its receivership for said institution. The FDIC was appointed receiver of HarVest Bank of Maryland on April 27, 2012. The liquidation of the receivership assets has been completed. To the extent permitted by available funds and in accordance with law, the Receiver will be making a final dividend payment to proven creditors.                

Based upon the foregoing, the Receiver has determined that the continued existence of the receivership will serve no useful purpose. Consequently, notice is given that the receivership shall be terminated, to be effective no sooner than thirty days after the date of this Notice. If any person wishes to comment concerning the termination of the receivership, such comment must be made in writing and sent within thirty days of the date of this Notice to: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Division of Resolutions and Receiverships, Attention: Receivership Oversight Department 32.1, 1601 Bryan Street, Dallas, TX 75201.

No comments concerning the termination of this receivership will be considered which are not sent within this time frame.

Dated: February 6, 2015.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

Robert E. Feldman,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2015-02786 Filed 2-10-15; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
# C_2005093EN.01003602.xml

| 16.4.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 93/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.4.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/36

---

Action brought on 28 January 2005 by Yves Franchet and Daniel Byk against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-48/05)

(2005/C 93/68)

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 28 January 2005 by Yves Franchet, residing in Nice (France), and Daniel Byk, residing in Luxembourg, represented by Georges Vandersanden and Laure Levi, lawyers.

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | order the Commission, on account of the errors committed, to make good the pecuniary and non-pecuniary harm sustained by the applicants, provisionally evaluated at EUR 1 million; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission, on account of the errors committed, to make good the pecuniary and non-pecuniary harm sustained by the applicants, provisionally evaluated at EUR 1 million;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the entire costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants were accused by OLAF of criminal offences relating to the administration of certain files concerning Eurostat. The applicants maintain that the measures subsequently taken by the Commission contain procedural errors and fail to respect their fundamental rights.

In the applicants' submission, OLAF erred in forwarding the file relating to the accusations to the French and Luxembourg judicial authorities without informing the applicants or the Commission that it was doing so, breached the principle of confidentiality, disregarded the presumption of innocence, the principle of good administration and Article 9 of Regulation No 1073/1999, (1) the right to be heard and the obligation to state reasons. The applicants further rely on OLAF's opposition to access to certain documents and, last, claim that OLAF failed to deal with the cases within a reasonable time and infringed Articles 6 and 11 of Regulation No 1973/1999.

1

The applicants also claim that the Commission erred in not ensuring confidentiality and in failing to have regard for fundamental rights, in particular the rights of defence and the principle of the presumption of innocence. The applicants further criticise the Commission for having adopted an adversarial approach and for having duplicated the proceedings, for having breached the principle of good administration and, last, for having refused access to the OLAF documents in its possession.

The applicants claim that those errors caused them non-pecuniary and pecuniary harm.

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) (OJ L 136, p. 1).

1

---
<PAGE>

COMMUNITY CENTRAL BANK CORPORATION
FORM 10-KSB (continued)


                                   EXHIBIT 21

           List of Subsidiaries of Community Central Bank Corporation

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------- ----------------------------------

NAME OF SUBSIDIARY                                      JURISDICTION OF             NAMES UNDER WHICH
(AND OWNERSHIP)                                         ORGANIZATION                 IT DOES BUSINESS

------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------- ----------------------------------
<S>                                                     <C>                         <C>

Community Central Bank                                  Michigan                    Community Central Bank
(wholly-owned subsidiary of Community Central Bank
Corporation)

------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------- ----------------------------------
Community Central Mortgage Company, L.L.C.              Michigan                    Community Central Mortgage
(99% owned by Community Central Bank and 1% owned by                                Company, L.L.C.
Community Central Bank Corporation)
------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------- ----------------------------------
</TABLE>
*December 6, 1932.*

#### Wagler, Respondent, vs. Schuster and another, Appellants.

For the appellants : *D. J. Regan*of Milwaukee.

'For the respondent: *Quarles, Spence & Quarles,*attorneys, and *Kenneth P. Grubb*of counsel, all of Milwaukee.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.
### Devany. Dennis (OST) From: randlhofer@westelcom.com



### . Sent:

To: . Saturday, February 13, 2010 8:51 AM

.Devany, Dennis (OST);Swanson, Brian (OST) Subject: Cape Air/Plattsburgh "" ,:; ... ":;;: Dear Mr. Devanyand Mr. Swanson, I. urgey6uto preserve the Cape Airserviceto Plattsburgh, NewYork. Mywife and I have flown this airline manytimes both from Plattsburgh and San Juan, Puerto Rico. We have found them to befriendly, reliable and,they givevery . personal service. The small planes do not bother us at all. Given the recent history of Colgan Air, and based upon the Frontline story, mywife and Iwould probably decide to not

. fly on Colgan, but would most likelytravel to Burlington, VT to travel on a different airline if Colgan were chosen to serve

Plattsburgh. . . Sincerely, Robert and Lucille Hofer 537 Miner Farm Road Chazy, NY 12921

1
# C_2004314EN.01001003.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-154/03 (1)

(2004/C 314/22)

By order of 15 September 2004 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-154/03: Commission of the European Communities v Ireland.

---

(1)  
  OJ C 146 of 21.6.2003.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM TREX MEDICAL
CORPORATION'S QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 28,
1996 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>                          SEP-27-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-28-1996
<CASH>                                          38,179
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   31,565
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,281
<INVENTORY>                                     38,777
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               114,014
<PP&E>                                          18,587
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,993
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 212,038
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           47,067
<BONDS>                                             99
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           289
<OTHER-SE>                                     156,413
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   212,038
<SALES>                                         54,915
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                54,915
<CGS>                                           33,450
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   33,450
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 6,206
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    96
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  84
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,124
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,838
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,286
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,286
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

The Board of Directors
Aetna Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (No.
333-07169, No. 333-08427, No. 333-08429, No. 333-08431, No. 333-68881, No.
333-52321, No. 333-52321-01, No. 333-52321-02, No. 333-52321-03, No.
333-52321-04 and No. 333-52321-05) of Aetna Inc. of our reports dated February
7, 2000 relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Aetna Inc. and
Subsidiaries as of December 31, 1999 and 1998 and the related consolidated
statements of income, shareholders' equity, and cash flows and related schedules
for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 1999, which
reports appear in or are incorporated by reference in the December 31, 1999
annual report on Form 10-K of Aetna Inc.




                                  /s/ KPMG LLP



Hartford, Connecticut
February 28, 2000
NRCS CONSERVATION PRACTICE EFFECTS - NETWORK DIAGRAM JULY 2021

D. Direct effect

#. Created by 

practice

I. Indirect effect

C. Cumulative effect

LEGEND

Mitigating practice

Associated practice

Pathway

Notes:

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.

Nutrient Management (590)

Pest Management Conservation 

System (595)

D.5 (+) 

Safety

D.2 (+) Ground 

water quality

D.1 (+) Vegetative 

biomass and cover

D.3 (-) 

Ground water 

quantity

D.4 (+) Slope 

stability

Initial setting: Any land surface where the soils and 

geological conditions in karst terrain have led to the 

development of naturally occurring sinkholes and where 

improved water quality and/or farm safety is needed

1. Vegetative buffers 

established

Start

3. Access restricted 5. Filling/closure (when adequate treatment 

not achievable by other means)

I.2 (+) Upland 

wildlife habitat

Sinkhole Treatment (527)

C.1 (+/-) Biodiversity

C.2 (+) Quality of 

receiving waters

C.3 (+/-) Income and income stability (individuals and 

community)

I.4 (-) Water 

available for 

other uses 

(human and 

ecosystem) 

services)

I.8 (+/-) 

Net return

I.6 (-) Mass 

movement of soil 

I.3 (+/-) Cave 

and 

downstream 

aquatic 

habitats

I.1 (+) Landscape 

diversity

I.5 (-) Soil erosion

I.7 (-) Risk 

and liability

2. Trash/other 

material removed

4. Surface water 

controlled

D.6 (+) Cost of 

installation and 

Riparian Forest Buffer (391) maintenance

Riparian Herbaceous Cover (390)

Filter Strip (393)

Fence (382)

Access Control (472)

Plug

Gabions

Rock Filter

Diversion (362)
#### STATE ex rel. J. N. D. WILSON, Guardian, v. H. M. HOUSTON, Admr. and others.

*Parties — Aetion by Guardian.*

Where an action is brought by a guardian upon the bond of a former guardian, to which bond the plaintiff guardian, is surety, it is necessary ' that the wards of the plaintiff shall be made parties plaintiff and a *pro-ehein ami*appointed to protect their interests.

Civil ActioN, tried at Fall Term, 1876, of Cabarrus Superior Court, before *Schenck, J.*

The action was brought on a G-uardian Bond executed by the intestate of defendant, to which the plaintiff guardian was one of the sureties.

Before this action was commenced the plaintiff guardian ■demanded of the defendant’s intestate a settlement of the estate of his wards, and asked that an account be taken, &c.

The defendants demurred to the complaint and assigned as cause:

1. That plaintiff has not legal capacity to sue in this, that he is the plaintiff in this action and one of the sureties of the bond sued on.

2. That there is a defect of parties, in this, that the wards; should be made parties plaintiff.

*3763. That the complaint does not state facts sufficient to> constitute a cause of action, that a copy of the bond referred to is not appended thereto, and that no breach of sai& bond is assigned.

TIis Honor overruled the demurrer and the defendants. • appealed.

*Mr. W. J.*Montgomery, for plaintiff.

*Messrs. Wilson £ Son,*for defendants.

Reade, J.

The plaintiff guardian is one of the obligors in the bond sued on, it being the bond of a former guardian of the plaintiff’s wards. So that while the plaintiff is interested to effect a recovery for his wards, he is interested to-defeat a recovery against himself or which may enuro against himself.

This action could not be 'sustained' at law; and even in equity where it might be sustained, it would be necessary to have the interests of the wards protected by a disinterested personother than the plaintiff guardian.

So much of the demurrer as raises this point is sustained. And the case is remanded, to'the end that the wards may be made parties plaintiff and a *proehein ami*be appointed to protect their'interests.

There is error. Case will be remanded. Costs in this Court will be paid by plaintiff.

Per Curiam. Judgment accordingly.
<PAGE>
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                               .

                                   EXHIBIT 11

                        COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                              Year Ended December 31,
                             ------------------------
                              2005     2004     2003
                             ------   ------   ------
                               (In thousands, except
                                  per share data)
<S>                          <C>      <C>      <C>
BASIC

Net Income                   $3,073   $2,207   $2,105
/ Weighted Average Shares     3,467    2,970    2,936

Basic Earnings Per Share     $ 0.89   $ 0.74   $ 0.72
                             ======   ======   ======

DILUTED

Net Income                   $3,073   $2,207   $2,105
/ Weighted Average Shares     3,556    3,041    2,989

Diluted Earnings Per Share   $ 0.86   $ 0.73   $ 0.70
                             ======   ======   ======
</TABLE>

Per share data has been retroactively adjusted for stock dividend.

Notes:

     -    Where applicable, diluted share computations include the effects of
          outstanding stock options.
Exhibit 32.2

        Certification under Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

     Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Philip L.
Jones, as Chief Operating Officer and Executive Vice President of Profile
Technologies, Inc., hereby certify that the Annual Report fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the Annual Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of Profile Technologies, Inc.


                                           /s/ Philip L. Jones
                                           ---------------------------
                                           Philip L. Jones
                                           Chief Operating Officer and
                                           Executive Vice President
**Conservation Practice Effects**

**Commonly Associated Practices:**Access Road, Irrigation Pipeline, Irrigation System-Microirrigation, Irrigation Water Management, Nutrient Management, Pest Management.

**Note:**This worksheet contains general talking points for the conservation planner to discuss with the land user.  It is the first step towards an economic or financial analysis.  The second step would include identifying a specific site for analysis at the farm or field level, editing the template for local conditions, adding units and quantities of farm inputs and outputs.  The third step in the economic analysis is to place a dollar value on as many variables as possible, put all units in the same time frame, using amortization ($/Acres/Year) or net present value ($/Acre), so benefits and costs can be compared.  The fourth and final step would be to combine several conservation practices into a conservation system, which is how most conservation practices are applied at the field level. Data for the worksheet comes from the land user, conservation planner, technical specialist and local agricultural supply vendors and contractors.  See Economics Technical Note: TN 200-ECN-1, Basic Economic Analysis Using T-Charts (August 2013) for more information.