alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2015406EN.01001101.xml

| 7.12.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 406/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.12.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 406/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 October 2015 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 2 de Terrassa — Spain) — Juan Miguel Iglesias Gutiérrez (C-352/14), Elisabet Rion Bea (C-353/14) v Bankia SA, Sección Sindical UGT, Sección Sindical CCOO, Sección Sindical ACCAM, Sección Sindical CSICA, Sección Sindical SATE, Fondo de Garantía Salarial

(Joined Cases C-352/14 and C-353/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Articles 107 TFEU and 108 TFEU - Financial crisis - Aid to the financial sector - Compatibility of aid with the internal market - Decision of the European Commission - Financial entity undergoing restructuring - Dismissal of an employee - National rules concerning the levels of redundancy payments))

(2015/C 406/11)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Social No 2 de Terrassa

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Juan Miguel Iglesias Gutiérrez (C-352/14), Elisabet Rion Bea (C-353/14)

Defendants: Bankia SA, Sección Sindical UGT, Sección Sindical CCOO, Sección Sindical ACCAM, Sección Sindical CSICA, Sección Sindical SATE, Fondo de Garantía Salarial

Operative part of the judgment

Commission Decision C(2012) 8764 final of 28 November 2012 concerning the aid granted by the Spanish authorities for the restructuring and recapitalisation of the BFA Group, and Articles 107 TFEU and 108 TFEU, which form the basis for that decision, do not preclude the application, in proceedings relating to a collective redundancy that is within the scope of that decision, of national legislation under which the compensation payable to an employee whose dismissal is held to be unfair is set at an amount higher than the legal minimum.

---

(1)  
  OJ C 339, 29.9.2014.

---
p.1 

OAR Box 1147 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

189)IV-E-63 

Docket Number: 

A-87-11 

Printed 4/22/2008 2:42:57 PM Sheet 189 of 242 
P.2 

ytosr,^ 

I

5 2 

rtf/rdF 

R'Ql'mZl 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

ANN ARBOR. MICHIGAN 48105 

OFFICE OF 

AIR AND RADIATION 

AUS 8 1988 

MEMORANDUM 

SUBJECT: Meeting with Kuraray Chemical Co, 

FROM: Karen Lostoski, Mechanical Engineer<H^a**-

Standards Development and Support Branch 

TO: Public Docket # A-87-11 

I9S>TW U 

On Tuesday, July 19, I met with representatives from 

Kuraray Chemical Co. to discuss EPA's results from testing 

Kuraray carbon to determine its working capacity (see memo of 

July 25, 1988). The current status of the onboard reproposal 

was also discussed. The following representatives attended the 

meeting: 

Kenneth Von Hertsenberg 

Yoichi Mizuno 

Kikujiro Kihara 

Itaru Nishimura 

Karen Lostoski 

Mitsubishi International 

Mitsubishi International 

Kuraray Chemical Co. 

Kuraray Chemical Co. 

EPA 

6227W
# C_2013123EN.01002402.xml

| 27.4.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 123/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.4.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 123/24

---

Action brought on 13 March 2013 — Ningbo Qixin Solar Electrical Appliance v Commission

(Case T-145/13)

2013/C 123/42

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Ningbo Qixin Solar Electrical Appliance Co. Ltd (Zhejiang, China) (represented by: V. Akritidis and Y. Melin, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul, pursuant to Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the decision of the European Commission communicated by letter of 3 January 2013, No H4/JN/Ref.t13.000011, informing the applicant that it would not examine the applicant’s request to be granted the status of undertaking operating under market economy conditions, filed pursuant to Article 2(7)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009, in the antidumping proceeding concerning imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components originating in the People’s Republic of China, opened on 6 September 2012 (AD 590); |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul, pursuant to Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the decision of the European Commission communicated by letter of 3 January 2013, No H4/JN/Ref.t13.000011, informing the applicant that it would not examine the applicant’s request to be granted the status of undertaking operating under market economy conditions, filed pursuant to Article 2(7)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009, in the antidumping proceeding concerning imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components originating in the People’s Republic of China, opened on 6 September 2012 (AD 590);

| — | Declare inapplicable to the applicant as regards the present application, by virtue of Article 277 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Regulation (EU) No 1168/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2012 L 344, p. 1); |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare inapplicable to the applicant as regards the present application, by virtue of Article 277 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Regulation (EU) No 1168/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2012 L 344, p. 1);

| — | And, consequently, order the Commission and any interveners to pay all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

And, consequently, order the Commission and any interveners to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law identical to that raised in Case T-143/13 Zhejiang Heda Solar Technology v Commission.

Zhejiang Heda Solar Technology

Commission

---
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 138 (Monday, July 20, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 38824]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-19185]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. CP98-656-000]


Northwest Pipeline Corporation; Notice of Request Under Blanket 
Authorization

July 14, 1998.
    Take notice that on July 6, 1998, Northwest Pipeline Corporation 
(Northwest), 295 Chipeta Way, Salt Lake City, Utah 84108, filed in 
Docket No. CP98-656-000 a request pursuant to Sections 157.205, 157.216 
of the Commission's Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 
157.205 and 157.216) for authorization to modify approval previously 
received in Docket No. CP97-657-000 to abandon its Issaquah Lateral 
line, located in King County, Washington, by sale to Puget Sound 
Energy, Inc. (Puget), under Northwest's blanket certificate issued in 
Docket No. CP82-433-000 pursuant to Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act, 
all as more fully set forth in the request that is on file with the 
Commission and open to public inspection.
    Northwest now proposes to abandon the first 407 feet of the 6-inch 
Issaquah Lateral line by removal, and to abandon the remaining 
approximately 1.3 mile segment of the lateral by sale to Puget. 
Northwest states that the pipeline and appurtenances that are removed 
from the lateral will be scrapped, and that the remaining portion of 
the lateral will be capped and transferred to Puget.
    Northwest states that the estimated cost of removing the 407-foot 
section of the Issaquah Lateral and appurtenant facilities is estimated 
to be approximately $5,750, and that the remaining 1.3 miles of the 
lateral will be sold in place to Puget for $77,005, the approximate net 
book value.
    Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 45 days after 
issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 
214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to 
intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant to Section 157.205 of 
the Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205) a protest to 
the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefor, 
the proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the 
day after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed 
and not withdrawn within 30 days after the time allowed for filing a 
protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for 
authorization pursuant to Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-19185 Filed 7-17-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED MAY 13, 2015

NO. 03-14-00110-CV

Tobbie Tineeka Jones, Appellant

v.

Tamar Hays Jones, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 426TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JUSTICES GOODWIN AND BOURLAND

REVERSED AND REMANDED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE GOODWIN

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the trial court on November 8, 2013. Having 

reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was reversible error in 

the trial court’s judgment. Therefore, the Court reverses the trial court’s judgment and remands 

the case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with the Court’s opinion. The 

appellee shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and in the court below.
No. 11-5074.

#### Gordon Kirk Kemppainen, Petitioner v. Texas.

565 U.S. 888, 132 S. Ct. 265,

181 L. Ed. 2d 156,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5255,

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas denied.
No. 10-9682.

#### Brent E. Martin, Petitioner v. Alabama.

565 U.S. 830, 132 S. Ct. 126,

181 L. Ed. 2d 48,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6214.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama denied.

Same case below, 62 So. 3d 1050.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

GLORIA S. GRAHAM, as Trustee of the WILLIAM J. GRAHAM TRUST
DATED JUNE 16, 1968 , et al., Appellant s ,

v.

RANDY E. VIRGIL, SR. , as Personal Representative of the ESTATE OF RANDY E. VIRGIL, JR., et al., Appellee s

.

No. 4D 2 1

- 877

[ September 1, 2021 ]

Appeal of nonfinal order from the Circuit Court for the Seven teenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Carlos A. Rodriguez

, Judge; L. T. Case

No. CACE 17

- 005292

.

Jack R. Reiter and Sydney M. Feldman of GrayRobinson, P.A., Miami, for appellant s

.

Todd R. Falzone and Josiah D. Graham of Kelley Uustal

, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee s

.

P ER C URIAM

.

We reverse the trial court’s order denying Appellants ’ motion to transfer

venue from Broward County to Palm Beach County based on forum non
conveniens. 1

Appellants presented overwhelming evidence in this negligent security case showing the incident at issue took place in Palm Beac h County on property located in Palm Beach County. Moreover, all the parties and nearly all the witnesses are located in Palm Beach County , and all of the factors enumerated in section 47.122, Florida Statutes, weighed strongly
in favor of transfer.

————————————————————————————————————

1 The nonfinal order fixes the locus of the action in Broward County and
“concern [ s ] venue , ” thus making it appealable under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(A). See Dep’t of Agric. v. Middleton , 24 S o. 3d 624, 62 6

– 2 7 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009).2 The trial court recognized that the motion to transfer had merit, but denied the motion “without prejudice” because it wanted the parties to
attend non

- binding arbitration. This was an abuse of discretion

. See Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. v. Est. of Chavez ex r el. Hernandez , 8 So. 3d 1157, 1159 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) ( holding that the trial court abused its discretion in not transferring the action from Miami

- Dade County to Lee County in a case where t he accident occurred in Lee Count y, the individuals involved in the accident resided in Lee County at the time
of the accident

, and the eyewitnesses and first responders reside d in Lee County).

Accordingly, w e reverse and remand with directions for the trial court to grant the motion to tra nsfer venue.

Reversed and remanded

.

W ARNER , D AMOORGIAN and C IKLIN , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Electronically Filed 

Supreme Court 

SCWC-30075 

29-MAR-2011 

08:33 AM 

NO. SCWC-30075
 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I 

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

vs.
 

DEWITT LONG, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.
 

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
 

(ICA NO. 30075; CR. CASE NO. 1P109-1433)
 

ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
 1
 (By: Duffy, J., for the court )


Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant Dewitt Long’s 


application for writ of certiorari, filed on February 17, 2011,
 

is hereby rejected. 


DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, March 29, 2011. 

FOR THE COURT:
 

/s/ James E. Duffy, Jr. 


Associate Justice
 

Thomas Waters
 

for petitioner/defendantappellant on the application
 

1
 Considered by: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, and Duffy, JJ.,
 

and Circuit Judge Nacino, assigned by reason of vacancy.
No. 11-5159.

#### Ernest Battle, Petitioner v. M. Bodison, Warden.

565 U.S. 892, 132 S. Ct. 275,

181 L. Ed. 2d 163,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5588.

October 3, 2011.

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

*164Same case below, 413 Fed. Appx. 584.
DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY

**AVIATION**

**8000 JEFFERSON DAVIS HIGHWAY**

**RICHMOND, VIRGINIA  23297-5100**

Second Pre-Proposal Conference Information for Gas Cylinder Project SPE4A6-15-R0340

Due to the unexpected amount of callers on the teleconference held on Thursday, May 28, DLA Aviation will be holding another teleconference.  The Teleconference is planned for Tuesday, June 2 at 2:00 PM EDT.  This is a chance for interested contractors to ask further questions based on the posted questions and answers on Wednesday May 27, 2015.  We continue to work with our IT department to arrange the call.  We request that companies consolidate participates to the maximum extent possible so that all interested parties can join the call.  

The dial in number is 1-877-620-8890, conference access code: 8042795477 followed by pound (#).
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 135 (Wednesday, July 15, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 38164]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-18811]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. TM98-12-29-000]


Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation; Notice of Proposed 
Changes in FERC Gas Tariff

July 9, 1998.
    Take notice that on July 2, 1998 Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line 
Corporation (Transco) tendered for filing certain revised tariff sheets 
to Third Revised Volume No. 1 of its FERC Gas Tariff. Transco states 
that Appendix A attached to the filing contains the enumeration and 
effective dates of the revised tariff sheets.
    Transco states that the purpose of the instant filing is to track 
rate changes attributable to transportation service purchased from 
Texas Gas Transmission Corporation (Texas Gas) under its Rate Schedule 
FT the costs of which are included in the rates and charges payable 
under Transco's Rate Schedule FT-NT. The filing is being made pursuant 
to tracking provisions under Section 4 of Transco's Rate Schedule FT-
NT.
    Included in Appendix B attached to the filing is the explanation of 
the rate changes and details regarding the computation of the revised 
Rate Schedule FT-NT rates.
    Transco states that copies of the filing are being mailed to each 
of its FT-NT customers and interested State Commissions.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest this filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Sections 385.214 and 385.211 of the Commission's 
Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed as 
provided in Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests 
will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate 
action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to 
the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a 
motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room.
David P. Boergers,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-18811 Filed 7-14-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
No. 10-9345.

#### Enerva W. Trotman, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 828, 132 S. Ct. 123,

181 L. Ed. 2d 45,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5269.

October 3, 2011.

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

Same case below, 406 Fed. Appx. 799.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          24,631
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,715
<ALLOWANCES>                                       229
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                26,287
<PP&E>                                           1,306
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  28,281
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,465
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           108
<OTHER-SE>                                      25,708
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    28,281
<SALES>                                          5,306
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 5,306
<CGS>                                               94
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  (13,648)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (140)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  74
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (8,276)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (8,276)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (8,276)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (1.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (1.05)


</TABLE>
No. 10-7733.

#### Archie Bradfield, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1159, 131 S. Ct. 963,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 388.

178 L. Ed. 2d 793,

January 10, 2011.

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

Same case below, 376 Fed. Appx. 620.
EXHIBIT 32.02



Certification of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to

18 U.S.C. Section 1350

and Securities Exchange Act Rule 13a-14(b)



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Concur Technologies, Inc.
(Concur) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John F. Adair, as Chief Financial Officer of Concur, hereby certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and Securities Exchange Act Rule 13a-14(b), that to my knowledge:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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 results of operations of Concur.
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dated: May 13, 2004



By

/s/ John F. AdairJohn F. AdairChief Financial Officer




This certification accompanies
this report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed to be filed by Concur for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 6, 2019

No. 04-19-00227-CV

IN RE M.I.A., A CHILD,

Appellant

From the 166th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017-PA-02030

The Honorable Cynthia Marie Chapa, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

This is an appeal from the termination of parental rights to minor children. Appellant has 

filed a brief that identifies minor children by name and discloses their dates of birth in the 

appendix. The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure prohibit the filing of documents that disclose 

a minor’s name or date of birth, and the rules require that such information be redacted before 

filing. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.8(b)(1), 9.9(a)-(c).

We therefore strike appellant’s brief and order that the brief and appendix, appropriately 

redacted, be refiled within 3 days of this order.

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 6th day of June, 2019.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle,

Clerk of Court