alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2015228EN.01001301.xml

| 13.7.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 228/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.7.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 228/13

---

Order of the General Court of 21 May 2015 — APRAM v Commission

(Case T-403/13) (1)

1

((Action for annulment - Cohesion Fund - Regulation (EU) No 1164/94 - Reduction of financial assistance - Lack of direct concern - Inadmissibility))

(2015/C 228/15)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Parties

Applicant: APRAM — Administração dos Portos da Região Autónoma da Madeira, SA (Funchal, Portugal) (represented by: M. Gorjão-Henriques, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Guerra e Andrade and D. Recchia, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action for annulment of Commission Decision C(2013) 1870 final, of 27 March 2013, which reduces the contribution from the Cohesion Fund to the project ‘Development of Port infrastructures of the Autonomous Region of Madeira — Port of Caniçal’, Madeira, Portugal.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | APRAM — Administração dos Portos da Região Autónoma da Madeira, SA is to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

APRAM — Administração dos Portos da Região Autónoma da Madeira, SA is to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 367, 14.12.2013.

1

---
EXHIBIT 32.1


         THE FOLLOWING CERTIFICATION IS PROVIDED BY THE UNDERSIGNED CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF CLARK, INC. ON THE BASIS OF
SUCH OFFICERS' KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF COMPLYING WITH 18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002.

                                  CERTIFICATION

         In connection with the Quarterly Report of Clark, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 14, 2003 (the "Report"), I, Tom Wamberg, President
and Chief Executive Officer, and I, Thomas M. Pyra, Chief Financial Officer and
Chief Operating Officer, of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

     (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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



                                              /s/ Tom Wamberg
                                              ----------------------------------
                                              Name:   Tom Wamberg
                                              Title:  President and
                                                      Chief Executive Officer
                                              Date:   August 14, 2003



                                              /s/ Thomas M. Pyra
                                              ----------------------------------
                                              Name:  Thomas M. Pyra
                                              Title: Chief Financial Officer
                                                     and Chief Operating Officer
                                              Date:  August 14, 2003






         A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# C_2015096EN.01002001.xml

| 23.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/20

---

Order of the General Court of 26 January 2015 — Dosen v OHIM — Gramm (Nano-Pad)

(Case T-396/13) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Application for a declaration of invalidity - Withdrawal of the application for a declaration of invalidity - No need to adjudicate))

(2015/C 096/25)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Franko Dosen (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: H. Losert, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: initially A. Pohlmann and subsequently M. Fischer, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Thomas Gramm (Wesel, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 May 2013 (Case R 1981/2011-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Thomas Gramm and Franko Dosen.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | The applicant shall bear his own costs and shall pay those incurred by the defendant. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicant shall bear his own costs and shall pay those incurred by the defendant.

---

(1)  OJ C 274, 21.9.2013.

1

---
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

EUGENIO HAROS-GIRON,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 11-50563

D.C. No. 3:11-cr-01097-LAB

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 13, 2012** 

Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

Eugenio Haros-Giron appeals from the 60-month sentence imposed

following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to import marijuana, in

violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952, 960, 963; and importation of marijuana and aiding

FILED

NOV 19 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 11-50563

and abetting, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952, 960, and 18 U.S.C. § 2. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. 

Haros-Giron contends that the district court erred by denying him relief

under the safety valve provision of the Guidelines. See U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2. This

contention fails. The record supports the district court’s determination that

Haros-Giron acted as a manager or supervisor during the commission of the

offense. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(b); United States v. Egge, 223 F.3d 1128, 1132 (9th

Cir. 2000). Because Haros-Giron’s aggravating role in the offense precludes the

application of safety valve relief, the district court did not err. See U.S.S.G.

§ 5C1.2(a)(4). 

AFFIRMED.
### SCWC-11-0001078
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I

STATE OF HAWAI # I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs. ANTHONY SANTIAGO, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (CAAP-11-0001078; CR. NO. 10-1-1319)
ORDER ACCEPTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI ( B y : R e c k t e n w a l d , C . J . , N a k a y a m a , A c o b a , M c K e n n a , a n d P o l l a c k , J J . )



### The Application for Writ of Certiorari filed on May 16, 2013 by Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant Anthony Santiago is hereby accepted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that no oral argument will be held in this case. Any party may, within ten days and pursuant to Rule 34(c) of the Hawai # i Rules of Appellate Procedure, move for retention of oral argument.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, June 28, 2013. Stuart N. Fujioka, /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald for petitioner /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr. /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Richard W. Pollack Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-11-0001078 28-JUN-2013 11:34 AM
160 A.3d 701

#### CUMBERLAND FARMS, INC., PLAINTIFF-PETITIONER, v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE NEW JERSEY SPILL COMPENSATION FUND, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

February 13, 2017

ON PETITION FOR CERTIFICATION

To the Appellate Division, Superior Court:

A petition for certification of the judgment in [ A-XXXXXX-XX ] having been submitted to this Court, and the Court having considered the same;

It is ORDERED that the petition for certification is denied, with costs.
##### 



PRIVATE
 
   START DATE
 COMPENSATION
 EQUITY
 BONUS




---



##### 



AUTO ALLOWANCE
 RELOCATION ALLOWANCE
 TERMINATION a) Change in control
     b) Termination other than for cause




---



##### 



c) Termination by Executive for Good Reason
    RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS
  INVENTIONS
 DOLLAR PROPERTY




---



##### 



BENEFITS
 Health Insurance
 Dental Insurance
 Life Insurance
 Short Term Disability
 Long Term Disability
 4 01(k) Plan st
 Holidays
 Personal Time
 Vacation
 EXPIRATION OF BENEFITS
 REPORTING RELATIONSHIP




---



##### 



ACCEPTANCE
 Accepted and Agreed to:
 NameDate




---



##### 



APPROVED RELOCATION EXPENSES  FOR ROY HIBBERD
 POLICY
  PROCEDURES
 1.
    
    Reimbursement and/or payment of relocation expenses is not automatic but will be made if the
expense or expenses are within the parameters defined herein.2.
    
    For reimbursements of approved relocation expenses, an Expense Form should be completed with
all receipts attached. All exceptions to this relocation policy must be approved by the
President of Dollar Financial Corp.3.
    
    The following expenses are allowed under this relocation policy:
 a.
    
    House hunting trips  Two house hunting trips not to exceed two (2) persons
(executive and spouse) per trip for a total of three (3) days each.
 
    
    Air fare or mileage
    
    Rental car
    
    Hotel
    
    Reimbursement of meals
 b.
    
    Moving Expenses:
 
    
    Van line expenses for moving of personal belongings.
  packing and unpacking included.
    
    Insurance for moving of personal belongings on van line.
    
    Maximum 30 day furniture storage.
    
    $.36 per mile for relocating vehicles based on most direct
route to new location.
    
    Hotel and meals while en route.
 c.
    
    Temporary lodging at new location to include:
 
    
    Ninety (90) days maximum
    
    Room and tax
    
    Local phone and long distance phone
    
    Parking
    
    Car rental
 d.
    
    Closing costs:
 
    
    Reimbursement for Commissions (Max. 6%) on sale of primary residenceNOTE: Should Executive sell the house without a Realtor, Dollar Financial Corp.
will not reimburse for what would have been paid in Realtors commission.
 e.
    
    Any other costs above and beyond those items above, or any exceptions, must
receive the prior approval of the President of Dollar Financial Corp.
 4.
    
    The executive shall not bear the additional tax burden of relocation. Should this
occur, the executives tax preparation firm should prepare a letter stating the




---



##### 



amount of the additional tax. This should be sent to the President of Dollar Financial
Corp. for authorization of reimbursement.6.
    
    Tax reimbursement for relocation is for one time only.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED DE CEMBER 30, 2014

NO. 03

- 12

- 00669

- CR

The State of Texas, Appellant

v.

Marcus Tyler Scheffield, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 27 4 TH DISTRICT COURT OF COMAL COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE JO NES, JUSTICES GOODWI N AND FIELD

REVERSED AND REMANDED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE FIELD

This is an appeal from the order entered by the district court suppressing appellee’s statements to

th e New Braunfels Police Department

. Having reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments,

the Court holds that there was reversible error in the order

. Therefore, the Court reverses the

district court’s order and remands t he case for further proceeding s. Because appell ee is indigent

and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs is made.
# C_2014045EN.01004701.xml

| 15.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/47

---

Action brought on 12 December 2013 — ZZ v ERA

(Case F-120/13)

2014/C 45/88

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Railway Agency (ERA)

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision not to renew the temporary staff contract of the applicant.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision not to renew the temporary staff contract of the applicant within the Agency; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision not to renew the temporary staff contract of the applicant within the Agency;

| — | Order the Agency to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Agency to pay the costs.

---
#### Heidi Voelker, Respondent, v Bodum USA, Inc., et al., Defendants, and Bodum AG, Appellant.

[50 NYS3d 283]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Geoffrey D. Wright, J.), entered May 9, 2016, which granted plaintiff’s motion for entry of a default judgment as to liability against defendant Bodum AG, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In support of her motion for a default judgment, plaintiff demonstrated that she properly served Bodum AG, a foreign corporation not authorized to do business in New York, through the Central Authority established by Switzerland pursuant to the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters (20 UST 361, TIAS No. 6638 [1969]) *(see Mutual Benefits Offshore Fund v Zeltser,*140 AD3d 444, 445-446 [1st Dept 2016]). The Central Authority returned a completed certificate of service, which plaintiff filed in court, and which provides “prima facie evidence that the Central Authority’s service on [Bodum AG] *588was made in compliance with the convention” *(Unite Natl. Retirement Fund v Ariela, Inc.,*643 F Supp 2d 328, 334 [SDNY 2008]; *see also Kulpa v Jackson,*3 Misc 3d 227, 233-235 [Sup Ct, Oneida County 2004]). Bodum AG failed to rebut that evidence. Since the Hague Convention applies, Bodum AG’s arguments concerning compliance with provisions of New York State law are irrevelant *(see Aspinall's Club v Aryeh,*86 AD2d 428, 433-434 [2d Dept 1982]).

Plaintiff’s verified complaint and affidavit of merits set forth “enough facts to enable [the] court to determine that a viable” strict products liability claim exists against Bodum AG *(Woodson v Mendon Leasing Corp.,*100 NY2d 62, 71 [2003]; CPLR 3215 [f]), based on allegations that Bodum AG manufactured a defective French press coffeemaker that exploded when used, causing injury to plaintiff.

Concur — Acosta, J.P., Richter, Andrias, Kahn and Gesmer, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2578 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2578

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To reauthorize the National Flood Insurance Program, and for other 
                               purposes.

    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 ``National Flood Insurance Program 
Extension Act of 2019''.

SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM.

    (a) Financing.--Section 1309(a) of the National Flood Insurance Act 
of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4016(a)) is amended by striking ``May 31, 2019'' and 
inserting ``September 30, 2019''.
    (b) Program Expiration.--Section 1319 of the National Flood 
Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4026) is amended by striking ``May 31, 
2019'' and inserting ``September 30, 2019''.
    (c) Retroactive Effective Date.--If this Act is enacted after May 
31, 2019, the amendments made by subsections (a) and (b) shall take 
effect as if enacted on May 31, 2019.

            Passed the House of Representatives May 14, 2019.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
116th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 2578

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

  To reauthorize the National Flood Insurance Program, and for other 
                               purposes.
```
No. 10-166.

#### Harold R. Stanley, Petitioner v. Jack Grate, Judge, Circuit Court of Missouri, Jackson County, et al.

562 U.S. 961, 131 S. Ct. 462,

178 L. Ed. 2d 288,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8109.

October 12, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 368 Fed. Appx. 699.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedul contains second quarter summary financial information extracted
from Mississippi Chemical Corporation fiscal 1998 second quarter Form 10-Q and
is qualified in its entirety by reference to such Form 10-Q filing.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000066895
<NAME> MISSISSIPPI CHEMICAL CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           4,176
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   52,009
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,878
<INVENTORY>                                     91,845
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               159,703
<PP&E>                                         748,349
<DEPRECIATION>                                 319,399
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 917,162
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           66,293
<BONDS>                                        213,978
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           280
<OTHER-SE>                                     437,016
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   917,162
<SALES>                                        228,947
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               229,368
<CGS>                                          187,454
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  215,959
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   111
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,644
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,765
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,033
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,732
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,732
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.17
        

</TABLE>
Attachment D

Work Sheets used to Calculate Industry Labor Costs 

This attachment is available as part of the electronic docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0766 and is 

part of the ICR’s Supporting Statement.

NAICS: 325300

Pesticide, Fertilizer, and Other Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing

Labor Cost 

Category Formula Managerial Technical Clerical

Unloaded Hourly 

Rate 1

= W $55.84 $28.25 $17.23 

Benefits Percentage 

2

Lb = B/W 44% 44% 44%

Benefits per hour B = W*Lb $24.35 $12.32 $7.51 

Loaded Hourly Rate

Wb = W+B 

= W(1+Lb) $80.19 $40.57 $24.74 

Overhead 

Percentage 3

Lo = 

OH/Wb 50% 50% 50%

Overhead per hour

OH = 

Wb*Lo $40.09 $20.28 $12.37 

Fully Loaded Wage 

Rate

Wf = Wb + 

OH

$120.28 $60.85 $37.11 

= W + B + 

OH 

1. Data Source: BLS http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics4_325300.htm May 2010 data

 NAICS 325300 - Pesticide, Fertilizer, and Other Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing

 Standard Occupational Codes: 

 Management: 11-0000, Management Occupations 

 Technical: 19-0000, Life, Physical, and Social Science Occupations 

 Clerical: 43-0000, Office and Administrative Support Occupations 

2. Fringe benefits/wage per hour. 

3. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual, Sixth 

Edition, EPA-452-02-001, January 2002, pg. 2-34. The loading for indirect costs is within the 

range of 20-70% of the load labor rate (wage + benefits) suggested in EPA guidance.
**Exhibit 23**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTEREDPUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We consent to theincorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-157602 on Form S-3and Registration Statements No. 333-162109, 333-152639, 333-134512,333-97903, 333-91458, 333-62404, and 333-55438 on Form S-8 of our reportsdated February 19, 2010, relating to the consolidated financial statementsof CoBiz Financial Inc. and Subsidiaries, and the effectiveness of CoBizFinancial Inc. and Subsidiaries’ internal control over financial reporting,appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of CoBiz Financial Inc. andSubsidiaries for the year ended December 31, 2009.

 

/s/ Deloitte &Touche LLP

Denver, ColoradoFebruary 19, 2010

 

----
No. 09-11480.

#### Roger J. Day, Petitioner v. Minnesota, et al.

562 U.S. 823, 131 S. Ct. 384,

178 L. Ed. 2d 19,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6568.

October 4, 2010.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied. Petitioner is allowed until October 25, 2010, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.

Same case below, 354 Fed. Appx. 272.
## ELECTRONIC RECORD COA # 03-13-00180-CR OFFENSE: 21.11 Juan David Garza, Jr. v. The State 

## STYLE: ofTexas COUNTY: Hays 

# 6*7-/5

COA DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED TRIAL COURT: 22nd District Court DATE: 04/09/15 Publish: NO TC CASE #: CR-08-846



### IN THE COURT OF CRIMINALAPPEALS Juan David Garza, Jr. v. TheState of 

### STYLE: Texas CCA#: 

## APPELLANT^ Petition FOR DISCRETIONARYREVIEW IN CCAIS: 

# Wfof?) DATE: QfUU^O/r 

# JUDGE: $fi\CtAA.«C>^ PUBLISH: 

# fe*7-/r CCADisposition: DATE: JUDGE: SIGNED:
REHEARING IN CCA IS: JUDGE: PC:_ DNP:

MOTION FOR ELECTRONIC RECORD