alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2013367EN.01004002.xml

| 14.12.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 367/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 367/40

---

Action brought on 23 September 2013 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-96/13)

2013/C 367/71

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, E. Marchal and D. Abreu Caldas, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for annulment of the decision to reassign the applicant, with retroactive effect, from the West Bank and Gaza Strip to East Jerusalem delegation to the DG Mobility and Transport, Common Resources Directorate MOVE/ENER in Brussels.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | The decision signed by the Head of section: Redistribution of staff, career and performance management of 25 January 2013 to reassign the applicant, with retroactive effect to 1 January 2013, to the DG Mobility and Transport, Common Resources Directorate MOVE/ENER at Brussels 1; |
| --- | --- |

—

The decision signed by the Head of section: Redistribution of staff, career and performance management of 25 January 2013 to reassign the applicant, with retroactive effect to 1 January 2013, to the DG Mobility and Transport, Common Resources Directorate MOVE/ENER at Brussels 1;

| — | Order the Commission to pay him the symbolic sum of EUR 1 in compensation for both the non-pecuniary harm and the material harm and to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay him the symbolic sum of EUR 1 in compensation for both the non-pecuniary harm and the material harm and to pay the costs.

---
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52

[EPA-R06-0AR-2008-0192; FRL- .l

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans;

Texas; Revisions to Chapter 116 which relate to the Permit Renewal Application and

Permit Renewal Submittal

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the applicable State Implementation

Plan (SIP) for the State ofTexas which relate to the Permit Renewal Application and Permit

Renewal Submittal regulations. These portions ofthe SIP revisions approved today would

address requirements related to the timeline for the submittal of an application for permit

renewal. EPA finds thatthese changes to the Texas SIP comply with the Federal Clean Air Act

(the Act or CAA) and EPA regulations, are consistent with EPA policies, and will improve air

quality. This action is being proposed under section 110 and parts C and D ofthe Act.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before [insert the date 30 days after date of

publication in FEDERAL REGISTER].
2

ADDRESSES: Comments may bemailedtoMr.leffRobinson.Chief. Air Permits Section

(6PD-R), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas

75202-2733. Comments may also be submitted electronically or through hand delivery/courier

by following the detailed instructions in the ADDRESSES section ofthe direct final rule located

in the rules section ofthis Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions concerning today's

proposal, please contact Ms. Melanie Magee (6PD-R), Air Permits Section, Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue (6PD-R), Suite 1200, Dallas, TX 75202-2733.

The telephone number is (214) 665-7161. Ms. Magee can also be reached via electronic mail at

magee.melanie@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the final rules section ofthis Federal Register,

EPA is approving the State's SIP submittal as a direct final rule without prior proposal because

the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no relevant adverse

comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no relevant

adverse comments are received in response to this action, no further activity is contemplated. If

EPA receives relevant adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public

comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule.

EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this
3

action should do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an

amendment, paragraph, or section ofthe rule, and ifthat provision may be severed from the

remainder ofthe rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions ofthe rule that are not the subject

of an adverse comment.

For additional information, see the direct final rule which is located in the rules section of

this Federal Register.

Dated: Al Armendariz,

Regional Administrator, Region 6.
No. 10-6829.

#### Robert Black, Jr., Petitioner v. William L. Sadler.

562 U.S. 1094, 131 S. Ct. 801,

178 L. Ed. 2d 536,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9559,

December 6, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District, denied.
Accession Agreement


 Exhibit 10.17 
  
 ACCESSION AGREEMENT 
  

	To:	   BARCLAYS BANK PLC as Facility Agent 

  

	From:  ARAMARK	IRELAND HOLDINGS LIMITED, ARAMARK HOLDINGS GMBH & CO. KG and ARAMARK GMBH 

  

	Date:	  22 September 2004 

  
 ARAMARK IRELAND HOLDINGS LIMITED – £150,000,000 Credit Agreement  
 dated 21 June 2004, as amended by the amendment letter dated 22 September 2004 
 (“the Agreement”) 
  
 We refer to the Agreement. This is an Accession Agreement. 
  
 Each of ARAMARK Holdings GmbH & Co. KG (of Martin-Behaim-Strasse 6, 63263 Neu-Isenburg,
Germany) and ARAMARK GmbH (of Martin-Behaim-Strasse 6, 63263 Neu-Isenburg, Germany) agrees to become an Additional Borrower and to be bound by the terms of the Agreement as an Additional Borrower. 
  
 This Accession Agreement is governed by English law. 
  
 [SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS] 







			
	ARAMARK IRELAND HOLDINGS LIMITED
		
	By:	 	 /s/ John B. Benjamin


	Name:	 	John B. Benjamin
	Title:	 	Director

  

			
	
	ARAMARK HOLDINGS GMBH & CO. KG
		
	By:	 	 ARAMARK MANAGEMENT GMBH, its general partner
  



							
	By:	 	 /s/ Udo Luerssen

	 	By:	 	 /s/ Uli Böpple


	Name:	 	Udo Luerssen	 	Name:	 	Uli Böpple
	Title:	 	 Managing Director
 (Vorsitzender dar
Geschäftsfübrung)
	 	Title:	 	 Managing Director
 (Geschäftsführer)


  
 ARAMARK GMBH 

							
				
	By:	 	 /s/ Udo Luerssen

	 	By:	 	 /s/ Uli Böpple


	Name:	 	Udo Luerssen	 	Name:	 	Uli Böpple
	Title:	 	Managing Director	 	Title:	 	Managing Director
	 	 	(Vorsitzender dar Geschäftsfübrung)	 	 	 	(Geschäftsführer)

  
 [SIGNATURE PAGE TO
ACCESSION AGREEMENT]
# C_2013298EN.01000601.xml

| 12.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 298/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 298/6

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 29 August 2013 — Iran Liquefied Natural Gas Co. v Council

(Case T-5/13 R)

(Application for interim measures - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Iran - Freezing of funds and economic resources - Prohibition of the execution of ongoing trade contracts - Application for suspension of the operation of a measure - Manifest inadmissibility of the plea of illegality on which the application is based - Inadmissibility of the application)

2013/C 298/08

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Iran Liquefied Natural Gas Co. (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: J. Grayston, Solicitor, G. Pandey, P. Gjørtler and D. Rovetta, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and A. De Elera, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for suspension of the operation, first, of Council Decision 2012/635/CFSP of 15 October 2012 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 282, p. 58), and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 945/2012 of 15 October 2012 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 282, p. 16), in so far as those acts include the applicant in the list of persons and entities made subject to the restrictive measures, and, secondly, of Article 1(5) of Council Regulation (EU) No 1263/2012 of 21 December 2012 amending Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 (OJ 2012 L 356, p. 34), in so far as that act makes it impossible to perform the contracts concluded by the applicant with partners established in the European Union.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is rejected. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is rejected.

| 2. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The costs are reserved.

---
No. 10-6130.

#### Luther Leon Austin, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 945, 131 S. Ct. 369,

178 L. Ed. 2d 239,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7712.

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 368 Fed. Appx. 53.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Mark Crawford, Appellant, v Warden of Vernon C. Bain Center et al., Respondents.

[51 NYS3d 889]

*489Judgment (denominated an order), Supreme Court, Bronx County (Eugene Oliver, Jr., J.), entered March 8, 2016, granting the petition for a writ of habeas corpus only to the extent of reducing bail from $500,000 bond or $250,000 cash to $150,000 bond or cash, and otherwise denying the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs, bail pursuant to the interim order of a Justice of this Court revoked, and petitioner directed to surrender.

Based on the factors set forth in CPL 510.30 (2) (a), we find that the habeas court correctly determined that (except to the extent that the habeas court granted relief) the bail court (Marc Whiten, J.) did not abuse its discretion in increasing bail to the amount indicated, in light of the serious charges in the underlying case including allegations of egregious domestic violence and sexual assault, petitioner’s subsequent arrest for possession of four handguns, and the potential for a lengthy sentence if convicted in either case *(see People ex rel. Lazer v Warden, N.Y. County Men’s House of Detention,*79 NY2d 839 [1992]).

Concur—Acosta, J.P., Renwick, Mazzarelli, Andrias and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.
No. 10-6438.

#### Raul S. Zavala, Petitioner v. Drug Enforcement Agency.

562 U.S. 1015, 131 S. Ct. 554,

178 L. Ed. 2d 391,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8498.

November 1, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied.
# C_2013123EN.01002601.xml

| 27.4.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 123/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.4.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 123/26

---

Action brought on 14 March 2013 — Kingdom of Spain v Commission

(Case T-148/13)

2013/C 123/45

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: S. Centeno Huerta)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul notice of open competition EPSO/AST/125/12 — Assistants (AST 3), and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul notice of open competition EPSO/AST/125/12 — Assistants (AST 3), and

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, the Kingdom of Spain seeks the annulment of the notice of open competition referred to above for infringement of Article 22 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 342 TFEU, Articles 1 and 6 of Regulation No 1 determining the languages to be used by the European Economic Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1952-1958, p. 59), Articles 1d and 27 of the Staff Regulations and the case-law in Case C-566/10 P Italy v Commission.

Italy

Commission

In support of the action, the Kingdom of Spain claims that the notice of competition in respect of which annulment is sought:

| — | discriminates against candidates whose first language is not English, French or German; |
| --- | --- |

—

discriminates against candidates whose first language is not English, French or German;

| — | does not justify objectively and in a concrete manner the limitation of the number of languages in the light of the positions to which the notice relates; the mere general statement relating to ‘the interests of the service’ is not sufficient in that regard; |
| --- | --- |

—

does not justify objectively and in a concrete manner the limitation of the number of languages in the light of the positions to which the notice relates; the mere general statement relating to ‘the interests of the service’ is not sufficient in that regard;

| — | it is not in line with the objective of selecting candidates with the highest standard of ability, efficiency and integrity; |
| --- | --- |

—

it is not in line with the objective of selecting candidates with the highest standard of ability, efficiency and integrity;

| — | infringes the principle of proportionality, in that it does not ensure a balance between the efficiency of the service and the principle of guaranteeing multilingualism in the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

—

infringes the principle of proportionality, in that it does not ensure a balance between the efficiency of the service and the principle of guaranteeing multilingualism in the European Union.

---
No. 09-10920.

#### Sherwin Field, Petitioner v. New Jersey.

562 U.S. 855, 131 S. Ct. 119,

178 L. Ed. 2d 73,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6323.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, denied.
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 21

- 10007 Summary Calendar

**United States of America,** Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus **James Lewis,** Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:13

- CR

- 177

- 1

Before **King, Costa,** and **Ho,** Circuit Judges

. **Per Curiam :**  * James Lewis , federal prisoner # 46457

- 177 , has appealed the district court’s order denying his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) (i)

. The district court determined that Lewis had not shown that there were extraordinary or compelling reasons for compassionate

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  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 Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED October 12, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 21-10007 Document: 00516050623 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/12/2021No. 21

- 10007

2 release

. Moreover, r el ease was in appropriate considering that Lewis had more than ten years remaining on his sentence and reducing the sentence to time

- served would not account for the seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the law, or provide just punishment.
Lewis asserts that his medical conditions put him at risk of serious illness because of COVID

- 19, and he contends that the Bur eau of Prisons cannot protect him and has failed to prevent transmission of the disease. He also asserts that the district court failed to consider that he would not be sentenced as a career offender under current law.
T he district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Lewis ha d not shown an extraordinary and compelling reason for compassionate release. See United States v. Thompson , 984 F.3d 431, 43 3

- 35 (5th Cir. 2021 ) , cert. denied , 2021 WL 2044647 (U.S. May 24, 2021 ) ( No. 20

- 7832 ). Nor did it abuse its discretion in balancing the statutory sentencing factors. See United States v. Chambliss , 948 F.3d 691, 693

- 94 (5th Cir. 2020 )

. Lewis’s contentions with respect to the career

- offender enhancement were before the court and were implicitly rejected. The district court’s order is **AFFIRMED**

. Lewis’s motion to supplement the record on appeal is **DENIED**

. See Theriot v. Par. of Jefferson , 185 F.3d 477, 491 n.26 (5th Cir. 1999). Case: 21-10007 Document: 00516050623 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/12/2021
---

Exhibit 32

|CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO                    
|---------------------------------------------
|18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,                      
|AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO                       
|SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Lexon Technologies,
Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (Report
), I, James Park, Chief Executive Officer and I, Bong S. Park Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of
my knowledge and belief:

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

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

/s/ James Park James ParkChief Executive Officer
Chief Financial Officer Date: November 19, 2010

/s/ Bong S. Park Bong S. Park Chief Financial Officer
Date: November 19, 2010

---
```

[Federal Register: January 25, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 15)]
[Notices]               
[Page 3952-3953]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr25ja10-93]                         

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Delegation of Authority 329]

 
Delegation by the Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy 
and Public Affairs to the Coordinator, Bureau of International 
Information Programs, or to Any Successor

    By virtue of the authority vested in me as the Under Secretary of 
State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs by law, including by 
Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, and the Foreign 
Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681, et seq.), 
and to the extent authorized by law, I hereby delegate to the 
Coordinator, Bureau of International Information Programs, or to any 
successor:
    a. The functions and authorities related to the dissemination of 
information abroad about the United States, and related functions, 
including those functions in the United States Information and 
Educational Exchange Act of 1948, as amended (the Smith-Mundt Act) (22 
U.S.C. 1431 et seq.), and
    b. The functions and authorities in the National Endowment for 
Democracy Act (22 U.S.C. 4412) relating to the grant program with the 
National Endowment for Democracy.
    The Secretary of State, the Deputy Secretary of State, the Deputy 
Secretary of State for Management and Resources, and the Under 
Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs may at any 
time exercise the functions and authorities delegated herein. The 
functions and authorities delegated herein may be further delegated, to 
the extent consistent with law.
    Any actions related to the functions and authorities described 
herein that may have been taken by the Coordinator prior to the date of 
this delegation of authority are hereby confirmed and ratified. Such 
actions shall remain in force as if taken under this delegation of 
authority, unless or until such actions are rescinded, amended or 
superseded.
    Any reference in this delegation of authority to any statute or 
delegation of authority shall be deemed to be a reference to such 
statute or delegation of authority as amended from time to time.

[[Page 3953]]

    This delegation shall be published in the Federal Register.

    Dated: January 12, 2010.
Judith A. McHale,
Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2010-1349 Filed 1-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-11-P
```
No. 10-6803.

#### Joaquin Suarez Flores, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1020, 131 S. Ct. 549,

178 L. Ed. 2d 403,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8363.

November 1, 2010.

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

Same case below, 385 Fed. Appx. 881.
No. 09-10950.

#### Yigal Adir, Petitioner v. City of Los Angeles, California, et al.

562 U.S. 1086, 131 S. Ct. 690,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9062.

178 L. Ed. 2d 520,

November 29, 2010.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 562 U.S. 857, 131 S. Ct. 123, 178 L. Ed. 2d 75, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 5963.
No. 10-6976.

#### Angelo Parks, Petitioner v. Nick Ludwick, Warden.

562 U.S. 1072, 131 S. Ct. 668,

178 L. Ed. 2d 497,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9314.

November 29, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
# C_2015026EN.01003301.xml

| 26.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 26/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 26/33

---

Order of the General Court of 10 November 2014 — DelSolar (Wujiang) v Commission

(Case T-320/13) (1)

1

((Dumping - Imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells and wafers) originating from China - Provisional anti-dumping duty - No need to adjudicate))

(2015/C 026/41)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: DelSolar (Wujiang) Ltd (Wujiang City, China) (represented by: initially L. Catrain González, lawyer, E. Wright and H. Zhu, Barristers, then L. Catrain González and E. Wright)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Regulation (EU) No 513/2013 of 4 June 2013 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells and wafers) originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China and amending Regulation (EU) No 182/2013 making these imports originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China subject to registration (OJ 2013 L 152, p. 5)

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. | Each party shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Each party shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 215, 27.7.2013.

1

---