alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2023063EN.01004502.xml

| 20.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/45

---

Order of the General Court of 6 December 2022 — CX v Commission

(Case T-52/20) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Disciplinary proceedings - Removal from post - Reinstatement decision - Application for annulment - No need to adjudicate - Claim for compensation - Loss of opportunity for promotion - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

(2023/C 63/58)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: CX (represented by: É. Boigelot, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Vernier, L. Radu Bouyon and T. Bohr, acting as Agents)

Re:

By his action under Article 270 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of, first, the decision of the European Commission to reinstate him at grade AD8, step 5, complying with the judgment of 13 December 2018, CX v Commission (T-743/16 RENV, not published, EU:T:2018:937), which he claims becoming aware of in the note of 21 March 2019 as well as, when necessary, the decision of 21 October 2019 rejecting his complaint and, secondly, compensation for the damage he claims to have suffered as a result of those decisions.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the claim for annulment. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the claim for annulment.

| 2. | The action is dismissed as to the remainder as manifestly lacking any foundation in law. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The action is dismissed as to the remainder as manifestly lacking any foundation in law.

| 3. | CX and the Commission shall bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

CX and the Commission shall bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 95, 23.3.2020.

---
# C_2020433EN.01005101.xml

| 14.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 433/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 433/51

---

Order of the General Court of 6 October 2020 — Sharpston v Court of Justice of the European Union

(Case T-184/20) (1)

(Action for annulment - Withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union - Letter from the President of the Court of Justice inviting the Member States to provide for the appointment of an Advocate General - Act not open to challenge - Inadmissibility)

(2020/C 433/65)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Eleanor Sharpston (Schoenfels, Luxembourg) (represented by: N. Forwood, Barrister)

Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Union (represented by: J. Inghelram and Á. Almendros Manzano, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of the decision contained in the letter of the President of the Court of Justice of 31 January 2020 addressed to the President of the Council of the European Union inviting the Member States to provide for the appointment of an Advocate General to the post currently held by the applicant.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Ms Eleanor Sharpston shall bear her own costs and pay those incurred by the Court of Justice of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Ms Eleanor Sharpston shall bear her own costs and pay those incurred by the Court of Justice of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ C 201, 15.6.2020.

---
# C_2020010EN.01005201.xml

| 13.1.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 10/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.1.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 10/52

---

Action brought on 15 November 2019 — Set v Commission

(Case T-794/19)

(2020/C 10/63)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Set SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: N. Aicardi, T. Ferrario, and M. Vasari, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision by which the Commission decided not to raise objections to the ‘Modification of the Italian capacity mechanism: Introduction of environmental requirements’, State Aid SA.53821 (2019/N); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision by which the Commission decided not to raise objections to the ‘Modification of the Italian capacity mechanism: Introduction of environmental requirements’, State Aid SA.53821 (2019/N);

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 108(2) TFEU, in accordance with the provisions of Articles 4 and 6 of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 (1) laying down detailed rules for the application of the formal investigation procedure, in the context of the assessment, by the Commission, of the compatibility of the notified measure with the internal market.

| — | In this regard the applicant highlights the issues connected to and the effects resulting from the opening up of the market-wide capacity mechanism to new, unauthorised production units, in respect of which the Commission failed to carry out an adequate assessment, noting that further aspects of the rules were amended in respect of which the Commission nonetheless either failed to carry out an assessment or carried out an incorrect assessment. |
| --- | --- |

—

In this regard the applicant highlights the issues connected to and the effects resulting from the opening up of the market-wide capacity mechanism to new, unauthorised production units, in respect of which the Commission failed to carry out an adequate assessment, noting that further aspects of the rules were amended in respect of which the Commission nonetheless either failed to carry out an assessment or carried out an incorrect assessment.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ 2015 L 248, p. 9).

---
# C_2022340EN.01003002.xml

| 5.9.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.9.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 July 2022 — Zhejiang Hangtong Machinery Manufacture and Ningbo Hi-Tech Zone Tongcheng Auto Parts v Commission

(Case T-278/20) (1)

(Dumping - Imports of steel road wheels originating in China - Imposition of a definitive anti-dumping duty and definitive collection of the provisional duty - Articles 17(4), 18 and 20 of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 - Lack of cooperation - Insufficient information provided to the Commission)

(2022/C 340/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Zhejiang Hangtong Machinery Manufacture Co. Ltd (Taizhou, China) and Ningbo Hi-Tech Zone Tongcheng Auto Parts Co. Ltd (Ningbo, China) (represented by: K. Adamantopoulos and P. Billiet, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Blanck and G. Luengo, acting as Agents)

Re:

By their action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicants seek the partial annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/353 of 3 March 2020 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and definitively collecting the provisional duty imposed on imports of steel road wheels originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2020 L 65, p. 9).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Zhejiang Hangtong Machinery Manufacture Co. Ltd and Ningbo Hi-Tech Zone Tongcheng Auto Parts Co. Ltd to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Zhejiang Hangtong Machinery Manufacture Co. Ltd and Ningbo Hi-Tech Zone Tongcheng Auto Parts Co. Ltd to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 222, 6.7.2020.

---
# C_2022002EN.01003302.xml

| 3.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 2/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 2/33

---

Judgment of the General Court of 10 November 2021 — Spisto v Commission

(Case T-572/20) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Recruitment - Notice of Open Competition EPSO/AD/371/19 - Decision of the Selection Board to exclude the applicant from the next phase of the competition - Criterion to assess professional experience - Compliance of criterion applied by the Selection Board with the competition notice)

(2022/C 2/45)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Amanda Spisto (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: I. Melo Sampaio and T. Lilamand, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU for annulment of, first, the decision of the Selection Board of 24 September 2019 rejecting the request for a review of the refusal to admit the applicant to the next phase of Open Competition EPSO/AD/371/19, and, second, the decision of the appointing authority of 26 May 2020 rejecting the complaint of the applicant against that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Selection Board of 24 September 2019 rejecting the request for a review of the exclusion of Ms. Amanda Spisto from Competition EPSO/AD/371/19; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Selection Board of 24 September 2019 rejecting the request for a review of the exclusion of Ms. Amanda Spisto from Competition EPSO/AD/371/19;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 371, 3.11.2020.

---
Dorian F. CALLOWAY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-1202

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed March 22, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Tonya A. EASON v. Ronald J. EASON

2160302

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

July 28, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Geology General

Filters

              - science_science(3)
              - (-)products_maps(1)
              - products_publications(4)
              - multimedia_video(1)
              - multimedia_video-149195(1)

## By Location

              - alaska(15)
              - arizona(1)
              - arkansas(1)
              - california(11)
              - colorado(10)
              - connecticut(1)
              - idaho(1)
              - kansas(1)
              - kentucky(1)
              - maine(2)
              - massachusetts(1)
              - missouri(2)
              - montana(3)
              - nevada(7)
              - new mexico(6)
              - (-)new york(1)
              - north dakota(1)
              - oklahoma(1)
              - pennsylvania(3)
              - rhode island(1)
              - south dakota(3)
              - texas(1)
              - utah(14)
              - virginia(1)
              - wyoming(1)

## By Year

map        January 1, 1966        Aeroradioactivity and generalized geologic maps of parts of New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts
Exhibit 10.21


 


April 18, 2016






Stewart Kantor


687 N. Pastoria Avenue


Sunnyvale, CA 4085


 


Re:First Amendment
to Letter Agreement between Full Spectrum Inc. (the “Company”) and Stewart Kantor (the “Executive”) dated
Sept. 24, 2007 (the “Agreement”)



Dear Stewart,


 


Subject to and effective
upon the date (the “Effective Date”) that the Company becomes a reporting company under the Securities Act of 1933,
as amended, pursuant to the consummation of an underwritten initial public offering of its Common Stock (the “IPO”),
this letter agreement (this “Amendment”) hereby amends the Agreement.
This terms of this Amendment shall not take effect, and this Amendment shall be null and void, if the IPO does not occur prior
to Dec. 31, 2016.


 


Pursuant to this Amendment,
the following changes to the Agreement shall become effective on the Effective Date, as long as you remain employed by the Company
on such date and subject to any material changes in the scope of your services to the Company:


 


The term “Base
Salary” under section 2(a) of the Agreement shall refer to a base salary at the annual rate of $200,000.


 


Section 6 of the Agreement
shall be amended and replaced in its entirety with the following:


 


“Severance
Compensation. Notwithstanding the above, in the event that you are terminated by the
Company without Cause or you terminate your employment due to Constructive Termination, the Company will provide you the following
compensation:


 


(a)          The
Company will pay you (i) your Accrued Obligations through the date of termination, and (ii) your continued Base Salary
for a period of twelve months following the date of termination.


 


(b)          For
the first six month period that you receive severance pay under this Section 6, your COBRA continuation coverage will be at the
same employee cost as such group health coverage is made available to covered active Company employees.


 


(c)          The
provision of the foregoing severance is conditioned upon receipt from you of a signed a general release and non-disparagement agreement
(the "Waiver and Release of Claims" in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A) and your continued
compliance with the terms of this Agreement.”


 






     


     


    

 


Subject to the recommendations
of the Compensation Committee of the Company’s Board of Directors, and in accordance with any terms and conditions the said
committee deems appropriate, you shall be entitled to an annual bonus.


 


You confirm that as
of the date on which your signature is affixed to this Amendment, the Company has complied with all of its obligations under the
Agreement.


 


Except for the forgoing,
you agree that all other terms of your Agreement remain in full force and effect.


 


Your signature below
confirms your understanding of and agreement to all the statements contained in this Amendment.


 


	 	Very truly yours,
	 	 
	 	FULL SPECTRUM INC.
	 	 
	 	By:	/s/ Menashe
    Shahar
	 	Menashe Shahar, Chief Technology
    Officer
	 	 
	 	ACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREED
	 	 
	 	EXECUTIVE
	 	 
	 	/s/ Stewart
    Kantor
	 	Stewart Kantor, Chief Executive
    Officer
	 	Date:
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 6 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 6

            Fixing the hour of daily meeting of the Senate.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 3, 2023

 Mr. Schumer submitted the following resolution; which was considered 
                             and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
            Fixing the hour of daily meeting of the Senate.

    Resolved, That the daily meeting of the Senate be 12 o'clock 
meridian unless otherwise ordered.
                                 <all>
```
Augustus FONTAINE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-3855

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[February 7, 2019]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
No. 03-14-00035-CV

____________________________________________________ 

In the Third Court of Appeals of Texas 

In the Estate of 

Evelyn Landua Koehler, Deceased 

An Appeal from County Court at Law No. 1 of Bell County, Texas 

The Honorable Judge Edward Johnson, Presiding 

Trial Court Cause No. 29,462

UNOPPOSED MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE 

APPELLEE’S BRIEF ON THE MERITS

To the Honorable Court of Appeals: 

Comes now Kanda Koehler, Appellee in the above case, and files this 

Unopposed Motion to Extend Time to File Appellee’s Brief on the Merits. In 

support of this Motion, Appellee shows as follows: 

1. Appellants filed their Brief Requesting Oral Argument on September 

18, 2015. Appellee’s Brief on the Merits is currently due on October 19, 2015.

2. Appellee has not previously requested an extension of time. 

3. Appellee requests an extension of time for 30 days to file her brief. If 

granted, the extension would change the due date for Appellee’s Brief on the 

Merits to November 18, 2015. 

ACCEPTED

03-14-00035-CV

7333858

THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

10/12/2015 2:36:26 PM

JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK

 FILED IN 3rd COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 10/12/2015 2:36:26 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE Clerk
UNOPPOSED MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE

APPELLEE’S BRIEF ON THE MERITS PAGE 2

4. Good cause exists for the extension of time to file Appellee’s Brief in 

this case. Undersigned counsel was formally retained on September 25, 2015, and 

needs additional time to review all relevant material in connection with this case to 

adequately prepare Appellee’s Brief.

5. No party will be prejudiced by the extension of time requested. 

Appellants do not oppose this request. Therefore, Appellee requests that the Court 

accept a Brief on the Merits from Appellee on or before November 18, 2015.

Wherefore, premises considered, Appellee respectfully requests this Court to 

extend the time for filing her Brief on the Merits to November 18, 2015.
UNOPPOSED MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE

APPELLEE’S BRIEF ON THE MERITS PAGE 3

Respectfully submitted,

BAIRD, CREWS, SCHILLER & WHITAKER, P.C.

By: /s/ Jack R. Crews

JACK R. CREWS

State Bar Card No.: 05072300

(254) 743-7320 – Direct

E-mail: jackcrews@bcswlaw.com

KENNETH R. VALKA

State Bar Card No.: 20435300

(254) 743-7350 – Direct

E-mail: kenvalka@bcswlaw.com

BENJAMIN D. BURNETT

State Bar Card No.: 24072012

(254) 743-7324 – Direct

E-mail: benjaminburnett@bcswlaw.com

15 North Main Street

Temple, Texas 76501

Fax: (254) 774-9353

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

The parties in this case have conferred and no party opposes this Motion.

 /s/ Jack R. Crews

JACK R. CREWS
UNOPPOSED MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE

APPELLEE’S BRIEF ON THE MERITS PAGE 4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of this document was sent to the 

person(s) named below pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 9.5(b) on October 12, 2015: 

Robert Little

Kristen A. Mynar

Naman, Howell, Smith & Lee, PLLC

400 Austin Ave., Ste. 800

Waco, Texas 76701

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANTS

/s/ Ben Burnett

BENJAMIN D. BURNETT
Patrick GANSERT, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. CITY OF LARGO/JOHNS EASTERN COMPANY, INC., Appellees/Cross-Appellants.

No. 1D17-3885

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

January 25, 2019 Rehearing Denied February 22, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
# C_2021289EN.01003103.xml

| 19.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 289/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 289/31

---

Order of the President of the Court of 27 April 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Ravensburg — Germany) — QY v Bank 11 für Privatkunden und Handel GmbH

(Case C-336/20) (1)

(2021/C 289/45)

Language of the case: German

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 423, 7.12.2020.

---
JEMorris Ventures LLC

Proposed Monthly Budget

20-Jun-24

Average Income $ 150,000.00

Cost of Goods Sold

Materials $

Day Labor $

Sub-Contractors $

Total Cost $

60,000.00

11,200.00

30,000.00

101,200.00

Gross Profit $ 48,800.00

Operating Expenses

Owner / Operator Draws

Vehicle & Equipment PMTS

Insurance

Fuel

Office Supplies

Internet

Tool & Equipment Rental

Repairs & Maintenance

Misc Expenses

Total Expense

$ 22,000.00

2,750.00

2,100.00

1,600.00

200.00

110.00

400.00

400.00

1,500.00

31,060.00

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

NET Income $ 17,740.00

Case 24-41590-elm11 Doc 42-1 Filed 06/21/24 Entered 06/21/24 17:32:23 Desc

Exhibit Preliminary Budget Page 1 of 1
NO. 07-03-0265-CV

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL A

	OCTOBER 27, 2003

	______________________________

	WARRANTY UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY,  APPELLANT

	V.

	DOUGLAS B. WYATT, M .D. AND LYNN WYATT, APPELLEES

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 47TH DISTRICT COURT OF RANDALL COUNTY;

	NO. 51,914-A; HONORABLE HAL MINER, JUDGE

	_______________________________

Before JOHNSON, C.J., and REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ.

	MEMORANDUM OPINION

	On October 7, 2003, appellant Warranty Underwriters Insurance Company filed an Unopposed Motion to Dismiss Appeal pursuant to agreement of the parties and in accordance with Tex. R. App. P. 42.1. The motion includes a certificate of conference and a certificate of service that counsel for appellees was served a copy of the motion by first class mail on October 6, 2003.  No response to the motion has been received.

	Accordingly, without passing on the merits of the case, appellant’s Unopposed Motion to Dismiss is granted and the appeal is hereby dismissed.  Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1).

	All costs are assessed to the appellant.  Having dismissed the appeal at the appellant’s request and the appellees not having opposed such request,  no motion for rehearing will be entertained and our mandate will issue forthwith.  

  							Don H. Reavis

							    Justice
EXHIBIT 32

            CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO

                      18 U.S.C 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In  connection  with  the  Quarterly Report on Form 10Q of Mass Megawatts Wind
Power,  Inc.  (the  Company) for the period ended July 31, 2008 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Jonathon
Ricker,  the  Principal  Financial  Officer  of  the  Company, hereby certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of  2002,  that,  to  the  best  of  his  knowledge:

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 results of operations of the Company.


Dated:   09/22/08                    By:   /s/ Jonathan Ricker
        --------------                     ---------------------------------
                                           Jonathan Ricker
                                           Chief Executive Officer,
                                           Chief Financial Officer and
                                           Principal Accounting Officer