alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2022222EN.01001301.xml

| 7.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 222/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222/13

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Stuttgart (Germany) lodged on 17 February 2022 — TAP Portugal v flightright GmbH

(Case C-156/22)

(2022/C 222/22)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Stuttgart

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: TAP Portugal

Respondent: flightright GmbH

Question referred

Is Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that an extraordinary circumstance within the meaning of that provision exists where a flight departing from an airport outside the base of the operating air carrier is cancelled because a crew member deployed on that flight (in casu the co-pilot), who has passed the prescribed regular medical examinations without restriction, dies suddenly and in a way that the air carrier is unable to foresee shortly before the flight or falls so seriously ill that he or she cannot perform the flight?

---

(1)  Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).

---
# C_2023278EN.01001201.xml

| 7.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 278/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 278/12

---

Appeal brought on 23 November 2022 by QN against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 14 September 2022 in Case T-179/21, QN v Commission

(Case C-720/22 P)

(2023/C 278/17)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: QN (represented by: N. Flandin and L. Levi, avocates)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

By order of 27 Juin 2023, the Court of Justice (Eight Chamber) held that the appeal is dismissed as being in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded and that QN shall bear his own costs.

---
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 21-10853

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Arturo Lara, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:21-CR-57-5

Before Davis, Jones, and Elrod, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

The attorney appointed to represent Arturo Lara has moved for leave 

to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 

386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). 

Lara has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this 

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 

circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 30, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-10853 Document: 00516260409 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/30/2022
No. 20-10853

2

relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s 

assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate 

review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is 

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and 

the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

Case: 21-10853 Document: 00516260409 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/30/2022
July 18, 2012

No. 11-10944 (11A1225).

#### Hearn *v.*Thaler, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

C. A. 5th Cir. Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice Scalia, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Certiorari denied.
#### William JOHNSON, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas

NO. PD-1254-15

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Delivered: October 4, 2017

Jani Maselli Wood, Assistant Public Defender, Harris County, Texas, 1201 Franklin Street, 13th Floor, Houston, Texas 77002, for Appellant.

Melissa Hervey, Assistant District Attorney, 1201 Franklin Street, 6th Floor, Houston, TX 77002, Stacey Soule, Austin, TX, for the State.

OPINION

Per curiam.

Appellant was convicted of aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon and sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment. On appeal, Appellant claimed that the comprehensive rehabilitation fee, assessed a part of the consolidated court costs, was unconstitutional. The court of appeals held that this claim was not preserved for review because Appellant did not object to the imposition of the fee before the trial court. The record reflects that the bill of costs was not prepared until weeks after judgment was entered. Appellant did not have the opportunity to object to this fee when it was imposed. In the context of court-cost challenges, an appellant may not be faulted for failing to object when he or she was not given the opportunity to do so. *London v. State,*490 S.W.3d 503, 507 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016). Appellant was entitled to challenge this mandatory court cost for the first time on appeal.

This Court recently determined that the comprehensive rehabilitation court cost is unconstitutional as a violation of the Separation of Powers Clause of the Texas Constitution. *Salinas v. State,*523 S.W.3d 103 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017). Pursuant to *Salinas,*the $133 consolidated court costs should be reduced pro rata by the per*930centage allocated to this impermissible account. The percentage attributable to the “comprehensive., rehabilitation” account under the statute is 9.8218 percent. Tex,. Local Gov’t Code § 133.102(e)(6). That percentage of the $133 fee assessed in appellant’s case is $13.06. Subtracting this amount from the $133 yields a fee of $119.94. We reverse the judgment of the court of appeals with respect to the issue of court costs, and we modify the trial court’s judgment to change the $133 consolidated fee to $119.94.

Newell, J., filed a concurring opinion., J., filed a dissenting opinion.

Hervey, J., not participating.

Newell, J.

filed a concurring opinion.

I join this Court’s order reforming the judgment because the court of appeals did not purport to apply the retroactivity discussion in *Salinas v. State*in this case. Nevertheless, this case provides an example of how applying that retroactivity dicta results in the unequal treatment of defendants on direct appeal. I would grant review in a case in which the issue is properly joined to address'this inequality. *See Horton v. State,*PD-0468-17, 537 S.W.3d 515, 2017 WL 4399159 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017) (Newell, J., dissenting).

Yeary, J.,

filed a dissenting opinion.

I dissent for the reasons articulated in my dissenting opinion in *Salinas v. State,*523 S.W.3d 103 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017).
No. 11-10783.

#### Sauer *v.*North Carolina.

Ct. App. N. C. Certiorari denied.
# C_2022294EN.01003802.xml

| 1.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/38

---

Action brought on 1 June 2022 — XH v Commission

(Case T-353/22)

(2022/C 294/55)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: XH (represented by: K. Górny-Salwarowska, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of 10 November 2021 (IA no 31-2021) concerning non-inclusion of the applicant’s name in the list of the promoted officials in 2021, upheld by the decision No R/72/22 issued by the Appointing Authority on 8 June 2022 in response to the complaint filed by the applicant on 5 February 2021; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 10 November 2021 (IA no 31-2021) concerning non-inclusion of the applicant’s name in the list of the promoted officials in 2021, upheld by the decision No R/72/22 issued by the Appointing Authority on 8 June 2022 in response to the complaint filed by the applicant on 5 February 2021;

| — | compensate loss and damages of the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

compensate loss and damages of the applicant;

| — | order the defendant the payment of all the costs and expenses under Article 268 TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant the payment of all the costs and expenses under Article 268 TFEU.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging error of law and the irregularity of the contested promotion procedure 2021: the violation of GIP 45 Decision C (2013) 8968 laying down general provisions implementing Article 45 of the Staff Regulations; the violation of Article 45(1) Staff Regulations in the light of Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and the absence of actual comparison of the merits. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging error of law and the irregularity of the contested promotion procedure 2021: the violation of GIP 45 Decision C (2013) 8968 laying down general provisions implementing Article 45 of the Staff Regulations; the violation of Article 45(1) Staff Regulations in the light of Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and the absence of actual comparison of the merits.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment in applying the promotion criteria provided for in Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, in the light of Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment in applying the promotion criteria provided for in Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, in the light of Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

---
No. 11-10690.

#### Thornsbury *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
# C_2023296EN.01001001.xml

| 21.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 296/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 296/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 6 July 2023 — Michaël Julien v Council of the European Union

(Case C-285/22 P) (1)

(Appeal - Action for annulment - Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community, of the one part, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, of the other part - Decision (EU) 2021/689 - National of the United Kingdom with family and property interests in the European Union - Fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU - Locus standi - Conditions - Interest in bringing proceedings)

(2023/C 296/10)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Michaël Julien (represented by: J. Fouchet and J.-N. Caubet-Hilloutou, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer, J. Ciantar and R. Meyer, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Mr Michaël Julien to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Michaël Julien to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 257, 4.7.2022.

---
<PAGE>
 
================================================================================


                      SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

                            Washington, D.C. 20549

                                   FORM 8-K

                                CURRENT REPORT
    Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

Date of Report: June 25, 1997
Date of earliest event reported: June 24, 1997

                        COLORADO INTERSTATE GAS COMPANY
            (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)


        Delaware                    1-4874                   84-0173305 
(State or other jurisdiction     (Commission              (I.R.S. Employer
     of incorporation)           File Number)            Identification No.)


         Two North Nevada Avenue
        Colorado Springs, Colorado                            80903-1727
(Address of principal executive offices)                      (Zip Code)


      Registrant's telephone number, including area code: (719) 473-2300


================================================================================

<PAGE>
 
ITEM 7. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND EXHIBITS.

     (c) Exhibits.

          (12) Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges.





                                  SIGNATURES

     Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned hereunto duly authorized.


                                        COLORADO INTERSTATE GAS COMPANY
                                                 (Registrant)


                                                    COBY C. HESSE
Date: June 25, 1997                     By: ___________________________ 
                                                    Coby C. Hesse
                                              Executive Vice President
Bonds.com 10-K


Exhibit 10.110





 



    	 



    	 



    

 


 


 



    	-2-



    	 



    

 


 


 



    	-3-



    	 



    

 


 


 



    	-4-



    	 



    
 





 



    	-5-



    	 



    

 


 

 



    	-6-



    	 



    

 


 


 



    	-7-



    	 



    

 


 


 



    	-8-



    	 



    

 





 



    	-9-



    	 



    

 






 



    	-10-



    	 



    

 


 


 



    	-11-



    	 



    

 


 

 


    	-12-



    	 



    

 

 

 


    	-13-



    	 



    
 


 

 


    	-14-



    	 



    
 


 

 


    	-15-
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.2


                            Certification Pursuant to
                  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
                    (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350,
                  Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)

     Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a)
and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), I, Robert
A. Peiser, Chief Executive Officer of Imperial Sugar Company, a Texas
corporation (the "Company"), hereby certify, to my knowledge, that:

     (1) the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June
     30, 2002 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section
     13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

Dated:    August 13, 2002                         /s/ Robert A. Peiser
                                                  -------------------------
                                                  Robert A. Peiser
                                                  Chief Executive Officer

     The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350,
Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of
the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
# C_2022266EN.01003101.xml

| 11.7.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 266/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.7.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 266/31

---

Action brought on 25 May 2022 — celotec v EUIPO — Decotec Printing (DECOTEC)

(Case T-308/22)

(2022/C 266/39)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: celotec GmbH & Co. KG (Sendenhorst, Germany) (represented by: E. Warnke and J. Römelt, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Decotec Printing, SA (Barcelona, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark DECOTEC — European Union trade mark No 10 948 032

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 March 2022 in Case R 1025/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to bear the costs of proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to bear the costs of proceedings.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

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


<ARTICLE>                                      UT
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1999
<BOOK-VALUE>                                   PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                      534,245
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                        552
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                          91,798
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                        21,976
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 648,571
<COMMON>                                        20,578
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                      139,172
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                             73,414
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 233,164
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           157,250
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                             104,000
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                    6,800
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 147,357
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                  648,571
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      298,854
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                            15,489
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     245,165
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     127,212
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                         38,200
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                               4,274
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                  42,474
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        18,023
<NET-INCOME>                                    24,451
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                          0
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                   24,451
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        19,783
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                       13,657
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                          50,281
<EPS-BASIC>                                     1.19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.18


</TABLE>
# C_2021138EN.01004601.xml

| 19.4.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 138/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.4.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 138/46

---

Action brought on 13 February 2021 — Creaticon v EUIPO — Paul Hartmann (SK SKINTEGRA THE RARE MOLECULE)

(Case T-93/21)

(2021/C 138/62)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Creaticon d.o.o. (Zagreb, Croatia) (represented by: P. Krmpotić, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Paul Hartmann AG (Heidenheim, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark SK SKINTEGRA THE RARE MOLECULE — International registration designating the European Union No 1 424 199

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 December 2020 in Case R 847/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | allow the trade mark registration No 1 424 199 for the relevant products in Class 3; |
| --- | --- |

—

allow the trade mark registration No 1 424 199 for the relevant products in Class 3;

| — | alternatively, annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

alternatively, annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to reimburse the applicant’s costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to reimburse the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of the principles of equal treatment and legal certainty. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the principles of equal treatment and legal certainty.

---
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Juan MARTINEZ-SALGADO, also known as Juan Salgado Martinez, also known as Juan Martinez Salgado, also known as Juan S. Martinez, also known as Luciano Escopa, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-20247 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed February 2, 2018

Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Juan Martinez-Salgado, Pro Se

Before REAVLEY, PRADO, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Juan Martinez-Salgado has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Martinez-Salgado has not fíled a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cm. R. 47,5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cm. R. 47.5.4,
----

----

----

----

----

|                             |
|-----------------------------|
|                             |  |  |
| Date of Granting Resolution | Plan Year of Original Award(s) | Number of Shares Under Void Options |
| April 28, 2011              | 2007 | 206,297 |
| July 21, 2011               | 2008 | 460,733 |
| October 20, 2011            | 2009 | 460,733 |
| January 31, 2012            | 2009 | 460,733 |
| April 27, 2012              | 2009 | 407,149 |
| April 25, 2013              | 2009 | 350,002 |
|                        | Total | 2,345,647 |

|                             |
|-----------------------------|
|                             |  |
| Date of Granting Resolution | Void PIP Shares |
| October 26, 2007            | 100,750 |