alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2022024EN.01004802.xml

| 17.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/48

---

Action brought on 19 November 2021 — Alcogroup and Alcodis v Commission

(Case T-740/21)

(2022/C 24/63)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Alcogroup (Brussels, Belgium) and Alcodis (Brussels) (represented by: P. de Bandt, C. Binet and M. Nuytten, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | order the Commission to produce the contested decisions, by way of measures of organisation of procedure; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to produce the contested decisions, by way of measures of organisation of procedure;

| — | annul the contested decisions; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decisions;

| — | order the Commission to pay all the costs of the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay all the costs of the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action against, first, the decision of the Commission requesting Abengoa SA and Abengoa Bioenergia SA to restart, under certain conditions, the settlement procedure in case AT.40054 — Ethanol Benchmarks and, second, the decision to reopen that procedure, the applicants rely on a single plea alleging infringement of the rules applicable to settlements.

The applicants submit that in adopting the contested decisions, the Commission infringes the rules applicable to settlements. The applicable rules do not provide for the Commission reopening a settlement procedure at that stage of the proceedings, let alone by precluding any discussion concerning the case overview disclosed in an initial settlement procedure in 2016 and 2017. Furthermore, the applicants submit that the contested decisions lead to a clear infringement of their rights of defence.

---
Exhibit 10.37


  As of February 7, 1995


       I hereby  irrevocably  surrender the  options granted  by
  that   Stock  Option   Agreement  between   Reading  &   Bates
  Corporation  and the  undersigned  dated October  7, 1993  and
  (effective as of the 14th  day of September, 1993), contingent
  upon the 1995 Director Stock Option Plan being approved by the
  Company's stockholders (in accordance  with SEC Rule 16b-3) at
  the Annual  Meeting of Stockholders scheduled for May 2, 1995,
  or any adjournment thereof.   If that plan is not  so approved
  by stockholders, this surrender shall be deemed void ab initio
  and of no further legal effect.

                                                        
                           R. L. Sandmeyer
#### Paul Emmanuel Poutcheu YOSSA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS INC.; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 12-17704

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted February 13, 2018 *

Filed February 26, 2018

Paul Emmanuel Poutcheu Yossa, Pro Se

Leslie M. Werlin, Esquire, Laura G. Brys, Esquire, Counsel, McGuireWoods LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Alison Valerie Lip-pa, Attorney, McGuireWoods LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees

Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

*697MEMORANDUM **

This matter has been stayed since June 27, 2017, pending issuance of the mandate in *Ho v. ReconTrust Co., N.A.,*No. 10-56884, or further order of the court. We hereby lift the stay.

Paul Emmanuel Poutcheu Yossa appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) and Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”) claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. *Kwan v. SanMedica Int’l,*854 F.3d 1088, 1093 (9th Cir. 2017). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Yossa’s FDCPA claim because the alleged communications were not attempts to collect a debt as defined by the FDCPA, and Yossa failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendants’ conduct was unfair or unconscionable. *See Ho v. ReconTrust Co.,*858 F.3d 568, 572 (9th Cir. 2017) (“[Ajctions taken to facilitate a non-judicial foreclosure ... are not attempts to collect ‘debt’ as that term is defined by the FDCPA.”); *Dowers v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC,*852 F.3d 964, 970-71 (9th Cir. 2017) (explaining that “while the FDCPA regulates security interest enforcement activity, it does so *only*through Section 1692f(6),” and discussing protections for borrowers set forth in § 1692f(6)); *see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal,*556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (to avoid dismissal, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face” (citation omitted)).

The district court properly dismissed Yossa’s RESPA claim under 12 U.S.C. § 2605(e) because Yossa failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendants were “servicers” subject to this provision. *See Medrano v. Flagstar Bank, F.S.B.,*704 F.3d 661, 667 (9th Cir. 2012) (explaining that “only servicers of loans are subject to § 2605(e)’s duty to respond” to a qualified written request).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and: argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal, including the district court’s failure to consider material outside of the complaint. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### IN RE: Reynaldo F. MARQUES, Debtor. Reynaldo F. Marques, Appellant, v. James J. Joseph, Trustee; JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A, Appellees.

No. 16-60095

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted December 18, 2017 ***

Filed December 26, 2017

Reynaldo F, Marques, Pro Se

James J. Joseph, Pro Se

David M. Liu, Parker Ibrahim & Berg LLC, Costa Mesa, CA, for Appellee

*376Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument, *See,*Fed. R, App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Chapter 7 debtor Reynaldo F. Marques appeals pro se from the judgment of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (“BAP”) affirming the bankruptcy court’s order granting JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. relief from the automatic stay. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo BAP decisions, and apply the same standard of review that the BAP applied to the bankruptcy court’s ruling. *Boyajian v. New Falls Corp. (In re*Boya*jian),*564 F.3d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm.

The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by granting relief from the automatic stay because JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. presented evidence establishing that it had a colorable claim to the property at issue. *See Arkison v. Griffin ( In re Griffin),*719 F.3d 1126, 1128 (9th Cir. 2013) (“[Bjecause final adjudication of the parties’ rights and liabilities is yet to occur, a party seeking stay relief need only establish that it has a colorable claim to the property at issue.”); *Moldo v. Matsco, Inc. (In re Cybernetic Servs., Inc.),*252 F.3d 1039, 1045 (9th Cir. 2001) (setting forth standard of review).

Marques has waived any other challenge to the order lifting the automatic stay. *See Greenwood v. FAA,*28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994) (“We review only issues which are argued specifically and distinctly in a party’s opening brief.”).

We reject as unsupported by the record Marques’ unsupported contentions that the bankruptcy court lacked jurisdiction and violated due process.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### REUTHER, C., et al. v. DEL. COUNTY BUR. OF ELECTIONS

1365 CD 2017

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.

10/26/2017

Delaware County Civil Division, CV-2017-007902

Affirmed
EX-10.16





 Exhibit 10.16 

SUMMARY OF NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR COMPENSATION PROGRAM 

 

					
	 Position
	  	Retainer(1)	 
	 Board Member
	  	$	100,000	 
	 Audit Committee Chair
	  	$	20,000	 
	 Compensation Committee Chair
	  	$	15,000	 
	 Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee Chair
	  	$	10,000	 
	 Audit Committee Member
	  	$	10,000	 
	 Compensation Committee Member
	  	$	7,500	 
	 Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee Member
	  	$	5,000	 
	 Lead Independent Director
	  	$	25,000	 

  
  

 

	(1)	 The annual retainers are paid quarterly and prorated for any partial year of service. Non-employee directors may elect to receive the annual retainers in cash or entirely in the form of restricted stock that will vest quarterly. 



Non-employee directors also receive an annual equity award of restricted stock valued at $200,000,
pro-rated for any partial year of service based on the closing price of our common stock on the date of grant, with the first grant to be made automatically upon the effectiveness of the Form S-8 following the completion of the Company’s
initial public offering and subsequent grants to be made automatically thereafter upon a director’s initial appointment to the Board and on the date of and immediately following the Company’s regular annual meeting of stockholders in each
year during the term of the Company’s 2021 Equity Incentive Plan. The annual restricted stock award vests in full on the one-year anniversary of the date of grant; provided, that the initial equity awards will vest on the earlier of the
one-year anniversary of the date of grant and the date of the Company’s regular annual meeting of stockholders next following the date of grant.
No. 11-10491.

#### Conner *v.*Birkett, Warden.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY

AND POLLUTION PREVENTION UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

RE: AgInfomatics Give Presentation on the Benefits of Neonicotinoid Insecticides April 30, 2014

List of Documents

1. Meeting Summary Page 1 2. Meeting Sign in Sheet Pages 2 -3

Meeting Summary

EPA, California Dept. of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR), Canada’s Pesticid e Management Regulatory Authority (PMRA), USDA Offices of Pest Mana gement Policy (OPMP) and USDA Ec onomic Research Service (ERS) attend presentation on the benefits of neonicotinoid use in agriculture. Neonicotinoid registrants Bayer (imidacloprid and clothianidin), Syngenta (thiamethoxam), and Valent (clothianidin) re quested an opportunity to give relevant regulatory agencies the preliminary find ings of the neonicotinoid benefits analysis they have sponsored. The benefits analysis was conducted and pr esented by the group AgInfomatics and this analysis examined grower perceived value, crop yield impacts of neonicotinoid use, and evaluation of alternatives insecticides. The preliminary findings presented were th at the use of the neonicotinoids clothianidin, imidacloprid and thiamethoxam on corn, soybeans, wh eat, cotton and sorghum likely pr ovides several billion dollars of benefits to the US economy. Feedback on the methods and interpretation of preliminary results were also provided by the participants. The AgInfomatics have no t completed their analysis and they hope to publish their findings in a peer reviewed journal in the future.
No. 11-10861.

#### Doane *v.*Clarke, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 11-10451.

#### Rodriguez *v.*Peters, Director, Oregon Department of Corrections, et al.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Order filed, October 15, 2014

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 14

- 00792

- CV

____________ KHALED ALATTAR , Appellant

V.
KAY HOLDINGS, INC. , Appellee

On Appeal from the 113th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2012

- 54501



### ORDER
The reporter’s record in this case was due October 06, 2014

. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.1. The court has not received a request to extend time for filing the
record. The record has not been filed with the court. Because the reporter’s record has not been filed timely, we issue the following order.

We order Sheila Skidmore , the official court reporter, to file the record in this appeal within 30 days of the date of this order

. PER CURIAM
1

The Honorable Louis F. Oberdorfer, United States District Judge for the District of Columbia, sitting by

designation.

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

File Name: 05a0491n.06

Filed: June 10, 2005

Case No. 04-1657

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION,

a Delaware Corporation,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

SIGNATURE AUTOMOTIVE GROUP,

INCORPORATED, et al., 

Defendants

TIM TYLER MOTORS, INC.,

a Michigan Corporation,

 Defendant-Appellant.

_______________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT

COURT FOR THE EASTERN

DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

BEFORE: BATCHELDER and COLE, Circuit Judges; OBERDORFER,1

 District Judge.

ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge. Third-Party-Plaintiff-Appellant Tim Tyler

Motors, Inc. (“Tyler”) appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Third-PartyDefendant-Appellee General Motors Corporation (“GM”) in this diversity action raising issues

under Michigan state law. This lawsuit began when GM sued Signature Automotive Group, Inc.

(“Signature”), a company in the business of purchasing vehicles for rental car companies, to recover

certain incentive payments that GM had made to Signature under a contract that GM claimed

Signature breached. Signature responded by filing a third-party claim against Tyler, the GM dealer
2

that agreed to place Signature’s vehicle orders with GM, alleging that Tyler’s mistakes in ordering

the vehicles caused Signature to breach its agreement with GM. Tyler filed counterclaims against

both GM and Signature, and the matter before us involves only Tyler’s appeal of the district court’s

grant of summary judgment to GM on Tyler’s contract, fraud, and statutory claims.

Specifically, Tyler argues that the district court erred in the following ways: 1) by finding

no genuine dispute of material fact as to whether GM engaged in bad faith conduct in its dealings

with Tyler; 2) by finding that GM did not violate any contractual duties to Tyler with regard to reinvoicing vehicles or providing retail incentives; 3) by refusing to find that GM had committed fraud

or fraud by omission in its dealings with Tyler; and 4) by finding that GM’s alleged bad faith and

fraudulent conduct did not constitute a violation of MICH. COMP. LAWS § 445.1574(1)(a).

After carefully reviewing the record, the applicable law, the parties’ briefs, and counsels’

arguments, we are convinced that the district court did not err in its conclusions. As the district

court’s opinion carefully and correctly sets out the law governing the issues raised, and clearly

articulates the reasons underlying its decision, issuance of a full written opinion by this court would

serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the district court’s opinion, we

AFFIRM.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 9061 

To amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to establish a credit 

to any bid for a lease that includes a commitment to use a project 

labor agreement, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 31, 2020 

Mr. KENNEDY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to establish a credit to any bid for a lease that includes a 

commitment to use a project labor agreement, and for 

other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. PROJECT LABOR AGREEMENT CREDIT IN OFF4 SHORE LEASING. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 8(a) of the Outer Conti6 nental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1337(a)(1)) is amend7 ed by adding at the end the following: 

8 ‘‘(9) PROJECT LABOR AGREEMENT CREDIT.— 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 9061 IH

1 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—In evaluating a bid under 

2 this section, the Secretary shall award a 10 percent 

3 credit to value of a bid if the bidder commits to 

4 enter into a project labor agreement with respect to 

5 any employees who, upon their employment, will be 

6 engaged in building or construction with respect to 

7 the offshore wind energy development within the 

8 leased tract. The Secretary shall include such com9 mitment as a term in any lease the bid for which in10 cluded such commitment. 

11 ‘‘(2) PROJECT LABOR AGREEMENT.—In this 

12 paragraph, the term ‘project labor agreement’ means 

13 a collective bargaining agreement that is— 

14 ‘‘(A) an agreement described in section 

15 8(f) of the National Labor Relations Act (29 

16 U.S.C. 158(f)); and 

17 ‘‘(B) between an employer and one or more 

18 labor organizations and establishes, in advanced 

19 of hiring employees who, upon their employ20 ment, will be engaged in building or construc21 tion of a specific project, the terms and condi22 tions of employment for such employees for 

23 such project.’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
[PNM Resources, Inc. logo]

 

**EXHIBIT32.2**

** **

** **

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO § 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-Kfor the period ended December 31, 2004, for each of PNM Resources, Inc. andPublic Service Company of New Mexico ("Companies"), as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2005 ("Report"), I, John R. Loyack, Chief Financial Officer of the Companies, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)     the Report fullycomplies with the requirements of § 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934, as amended; and

(2)     the informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Companies.

 
| Date:  March 1, 2005 | By: | /s/ John R. Loyack        |
|--------------------------------|-----|---------------------------|
|                                |     | John R. Loyack            |
|                                |     | Senior Vice President and |
|                                |     | Chief Financial Officer   |
No. 11-10981.

#### Figueroa *v.*Lea, Warden.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM






We
      consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
      333-00973 and 333-133548 on Form S-3 of our reports dated February 28, 2007,
      relating to the financial statements (and with respect to the report on those
      financial statements, expressed an unqualified opinion and included an
      explanatory paragraph concerning the adoption of new accounting pronouncements
      in 2004 and 2006) and financial statement schedule of Public Service Company
      of
      Oklahoma appearing in and incorporated by reference in the Annual Report on
      Form
      10-K of Public Service Company of Oklahoma for the year ended December 31,
      2006.








/s/
      Deloitte & Touche LLP




Columbus,
      Ohio


February
      28, 2007
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

 

**Certificationof Chief Executive Officer**

**Pursuant toSection 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

I,Burton M. Tansky, certify that:

 

1.    Ihave reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of The Neiman MarcusGroup, Inc.;

 

2.    Basedon my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.    Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.    Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

a)    designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

b)    evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

 

c)    disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s third fiscal quarter) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and

 

5.    Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors(or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

a)    allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

 

b)    anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

 

Date:June 9, 2005

 

 
|       | /s/ BURTON M. TANSKY                                           |
|------------|----------------------------------------------------------------|
| ** ** | **Burton M.  Tansky****President and Chief Executive Officer** |

 

1

----
|
|

|Energy Market and Economic Impacts of H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009                                                                              
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Figure 8. Energy-Related CO2 Emissions by Sector in ACESA Main Cases, 2030 (million metric ton CO2).  Need help, contact the National Energy Information Center at 202-586-8800).
|Figure 8. Energy-Related CO2 Emissions by Sector in ACESA Main Cases, 2030 (million metric ton CO2).  Need help, contact the National Energy Information Center at 202-586-8800).
|Figure 8. Energy-Related CO2 Emissions by Sector in ACESA Main Cases, 2030 (million metric ton CO2).  Need help, contact the National Energy Information Center at 202-586-8800).