alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2016243EN.01003802.xml

| 4.7.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 243/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.7.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 243/38

---

Action brought on 29 April 2016 — Ranocchia v ERCEA

(Case T-208/16)

(2016/C 243/42)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Graziano Ranocchia (Rome, Italy) (represented by: C. Intino, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Research Council Executive Agency (ERCEA) (Brussels, Belgium)

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the ERCEA Redress Committee of 26 February 2016 (Ref: Ares(2016)1020667 — 29/02/2016), issued following the formal redress request submitted on 22 December 2016 vis-à-vis the Evaluation Letter of Dr José Labastida of 17 December 2015 (Ref: Ares(2015)5922529); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the ERCEA Redress Committee of 26 February 2016 (Ref: Ares(2016)1020667 — 29/02/2016), issued following the formal redress request submitted on 22 December 2016 vis-à-vis the Evaluation Letter of Dr José Labastida of 17 December 2015 (Ref: Ares(2015)5922529);

| — | annul the Evaluation Letter of Dr José Labastida of 17 December 2015 (Ref: Ares(2015)5922529) and all documents connected with those mentioned above, including the list of projects approved by the ERC-Cog-2015 SH5-Cultures and Cultural Production panel, which was made public by the ERCEA by press release of 12 February 2016; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Evaluation Letter of Dr José Labastida of 17 December 2015 (Ref: Ares(2015)5922529) and all documents connected with those mentioned above, including the list of projects approved by the ERC-Cog-2015 SH5-Cultures and Cultural Production panel, which was made public by the ERCEA by press release of 12 February 2016;

| — | annul any prior, subsequent or connected measures. |
| --- | --- |

—

annul any prior, subsequent or connected measures.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his action, the applicant alleges a misuse of powers, on the grounds that the evaluation is manifestly unreasonable, that there has been a distortion of the facts on which the decision not to approve the proposal is based, and that the ERCEA’s rules on evaluating proposals have been infringed.

The applicant submits that the selection procedures concerned have been vitiated with regard to both the objective and subjective scope of evaluation.

As regards the first point, the applicant argues that there is a total lack of consistency between the (extremely positive) evaluations of the individual committee members and the final overall evaluation (rejection of the proposal), and that there has been an incorrect application of the evaluation criteria.

As regards the second point, the applicant focuses on what he considers to be a false representation of the acts and facts which led to the decision not to approve the proposal. He draws particular attention to the incorrect interpretation of the criterion of ‘excellence’ for the purposes of the evaluation.

---
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

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 Annual Report of Flag Intermediate Holdings Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2007 (the Periodic Report), I, C. Lourenço Gonçalves, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:



| | 1. | To my knowledge, the Periodic Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                         |  |  |  |                                      
|------------------------ |  |  |  | -------------------------------------
|Dated: February 20, 2008 |  |  |  | /s/ C. Lourenço Gonçalves            
|                         |  |  |  | C. Lourenço Gonçalves                
|                         |  |  |  | President and Chief Executive Officer

The foregoing Certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Act and
is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure statement.

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.
EX-10.15



 Exhibit 10.15 
  





 
  

2015 Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Bonus Plan 

PURPOSE: The BlackLine (“Company”) CEO Bonus Plan (the “Plan”) is designed to incentivize the achievement of
BlackLine’s strategic priorities through compensation that that supports overall excellence in job performance in accordance with BlackLine business objectives and goals. 

DEFINITIONS: 
 For the purpose of the Plan, the
following definitions apply: 
 a. “Free Cash Flow” (“FCF”): A measure of financial performance calculated after
accounting for capital expenditures. 
 b. “Net Bookings”: Refers to the total value of accepted term contracts, contracted work or
services, and changes to such contracts as of either the order date or the effective date of the transaction. Bookings typically include all items with a revenue implication, such as new contracts, renewals, upgrades, downgrades, add-ons, early
terminations and refunds. 
 c. “Participant”: Chief Executive Officer. 

PLAN DESIGN: 
 The bonus payment is discretionary,
subject to assessment of overall individual performance and approval by the Board of Directors. 
 The eligible earning rate is 100% of the
participant’s annual salary at the time of payout – equivalent to $325,000. 
 The Bonus Plan is contingent upon the Company meeting specific
financial goals and thresholds, as determined by the Board of Directors. 
 For 2015, the company must meet pre-established FCF thresholds and vesting
schedule is proportionate to the following achievement of revenue goals:
  

	 	•	 	Plan begins to vest at 80% Net Bookings achievement. 

  

	 	•	 	Once 80% Net Bookings have been met, the Plan pays out at 50%. 

  

	 	•	 	At 100% Net Bookings achievement, the Plan is fully vested at 100%. 

  

	 	•	 	The 2015 Plan is capped at 100% payout. 


  
 1 









 



 
  
  

 ELIGIBILITY: 
  

	 	•	 	Discretionary to Board of Directors approval of performance in role. The participant must be an active, full-time employee and not participating in an Individual Compensation Program. 


PAYMENT OF BONUSE: 
  

	 	•	 	Bonus payment, if earned, is targeted for distribution in March 2016. 

  

	 	•	 	Bonus amounts are subject to government required withholding payments/deductions. 

  

	 	•	 	All bonus calculations are based on the employee’s regular 2015 earnings, which excludes OT, commissions, bonus, etc. 


PARTICIPANT ACKNOWLEDGMENT 
 I
acknowledge that I have carefully read, understand and agree to the provisions of the BlackLine CEO Bonus Plan (the “Plan”). I understand and agree that the Plan is not intended to, and does not, alter the at-will employment relationship
that exists between the Company and me. I further understand and acknowledge that the Board of Directors is free to amend, modify or eliminate the Plan, in whole or in part, at any time in its sole discretion. 

 

									
	Employee Name:	 	Therese Tucker	 		 		 	
					
	Signature:	 	/s/ Therese Tucker	 		 	Date:	 	2/5/16


  
 2
Exhibit
32.1





Certification
required by Rule 13a-14(b) or


Rule
15d-14(b) and Section 906 of


the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of NGP Capital Resources Company (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended September 30, 2007, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
John H. Homier, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:




(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.





Date:  June
24, 2010





/s/
      John H. HomierJohn
      H. HomierPresident
      and Chief Executive Officer





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
NGP Capital Resources Company and will be retained by NGP Capital Resources
Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
Samuel BARKER v. Judge Karen HERMAN, et al.

No. 2018-CC-1725

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 22, 2019

PER CURIAM:

Writ granted. The "Civil District Court has jurisdiction over civil issues only, and the Criminal District Court has criminal jurisdiction only." *Cannizzaro ex rel. State v. Am. Bankers Ins. Co.* , 12-1455, pp. 3-4 (La. App. 4 Cir. 7/10/13), 120 So.3d 853, 856, *writ denied* , 13-1929 (La. 2/21/14), 133 So.3d 680. In this case, the Civil District Court has no jurisdiction to review the acts of the Criminal District Court. Thus, we reverse the lower courts and grant defendants' exception of lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
TRUSTEE’S RESPONSE PAGE 1 OF 1

Behrooz P. Vida

SBOT No. 20578040

CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE

3000 Central Drive

Bedford, Texas 76021

TEL: (817) 358-9977

FAX: (817) 358-9988

behrooz@vidatrustee.com

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

IN RE: §

WARREN DOUGLAS, LP § Case No. 24-40789-MXM-7

Debtor §

______________________________________________________________________________

TRUSTEE’S RESPONSE TO CLERK’S CORRESPONDANCE

COMES NOW, BEHROOZ P. VIDA, Chapter 7 Trustee (“Trustee”) of the abovereferenced bankruptcy estate, and files this Response to Clerk’s Correspondence (“Response”) and 

would respectfully show as follows:

Trustee has not made a determination regarding the assets in this case. Trustee has retained 

counsel and is investigating potential assets. Trustee will continue to file reports but is hopeful 

that a determination can be made within the next 180 days. No funds have been received as of the 

filing of this Response.

Respectfully submitted:

 By: /s/ Behrooz P. Vida July 12, 2024

Behrooz P. Vida

State Bar No. 20578040

CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE

3000 Central Drive

Bedford, Texas 76021

TEL: (817) 358-9977

FAX: (817) 358-9988 

EMAIL: behrooz@vidatrsutee.com
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 15

- 11165 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 9:11

- cr
- 80187

- KLR

- 1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus ARMANDO ANTONIO CASTRO, a.k.a. Antonio, a.k.a. Tony,
Defendant

- A ppellant.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida

________________________ (August 14, 2015)
Before HULL , WILLIAM PRYOR and ROSENBAUM , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Case: 15-11165 Date Filed: 08/14/2015 Page: 1 of 32 Armando Antonio Castro appeals pro se the denial of motion to reduce his

sentence . 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Castro’s motion was based on Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. We affirm. Castro pleaded guilty to three offenses involving the illegal possession of and dealing in firearms , 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(a)(1)(A), 922(g)(8), 924(a)(2), 924(a)(1)(D), three counts of distributin g a controlled substance , 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) , and one count of carrying a firearm in relation to dru g trafficking, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) . The district court grouped Castro’s offenses involving drug
distribution and possessing and distributing firearms , see U.S.S.G. § 3D1.2(a)

– (c),
and calculated his offense level based on the firearms offenses because th ey yielded a higher advisory guideline range, see id. § 2K2.1

. With an adjusted offense level of 29 and a criminal history of I, Castro faced a sentence between 87 to 108 months of imprisonment and a consecutive sentence o f five years for carrying a firearm in relation to a trafficking offense, see 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). The district court sentenced Castro to 156 months of imprisonment.
The district court did not err when it denied Castro ’s motion to reduce.
Because Cast ro was sentenced under the guideline for firearm offenses, U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1, not the drug quantity table, he was ineligible for a reduction of his
sentence under Amendment 782. See id

. § 1B1.10(a)(2) (B) ; see also U nited States
v. Glover , 686 F.3d 1203, 1206 (11th Cir. 2012). Castro argues that he was entitled

Case: 15-11165 Date Filed: 08/14/2015 Page: 2 of 33 to a reduction under the statutory sentencing factors, see 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), but a district court c annot consider the sentencing factors un less it determine s that a defendant is eligible for a sentence reduction. The district court lacked authority to
reduce Castro ’s sentence

. We AFFIRM the denial of Castro’s motion to reduce his sentence. Case: 15-11165 Date Filed: 08/14/2015 Page: 3 of 3
EXHIBIT 31.1   CERTIFICATION  I, Larry L. Eastland, Chief Executive Officer of Great American Family Parks, Inc., certify that:  1.       I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Great American Family Parks, Inc. for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2007;  2.       Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;  3.       Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4.       The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:   (a)      designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer is made known to us by others, particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;   (b)      evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure controls and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and   (c)      disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and  5.        The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions);   (a)      all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and   (b)      any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting.  Dated: August 9, 2007   /s/ Larry L. Eastland Larry L. Eastland Chief Executive Officer
I 

119TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 164 

To amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance 

Act to authorize Federal agencies to provide certain essential assistance 

for hazard mitigation for electric utilities, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 3, 2025 

Ms. HOYLE of Oregon (for herself and Mr. EZELL) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act to authorize Federal agencies to 

provide certain essential assistance for hazard mitigation 

for electric utilities, 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. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Promoting Opportuni5 ties to Widen Electrical Resilience Act of 2025’’ or the 

6 ‘‘POWER Act of 2025’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 164 IH

1 SEC. 2. ESSENTIAL ASSISTANCE. 

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 403 of the Robert T. 

3 Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act 

4 (42 U.S.C. 5170b) is amended by adding at the end the 

5 following: 

6 ‘‘(e) ELECTRIC UTILITIES.— 

7 ‘‘(1) HAZARD MITIGATION ACTIVITIES.—An 

8 electric utility may carry out cost-effective hazard 

9 mitigation activities jointly or otherwise in combina10 tion with activities for the restoration of power car11 ried out with assistance provided under this section. 

12 ‘‘(2) ELIGIBILITY FOR ADDITIONAL ASSIST13 ANCE.—In any case in which an electric utility facil14 ity receives assistance under this section for the 

15 emergency restoration of power, the receipt of such 

16 assistance shall not render such facility ineligible for 

17 any hazard mitigation assistance under section 406 

18 for which such facility is otherwise eligible.’’. 

19 (b) APPLICABILITY.—The amendment made by sub20 section (a) shall only apply to amounts appropriated on 

21 or after the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
J.D. v. P.M.

2160782

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

August 28, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
EXHIBIT 31.1

                                 CERTIFICATIONS



I, Elias Vamvakas, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of OccuLogix, Inc.;

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

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

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

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by this
quarterly report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
and

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

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weakness in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.

Date:  May 6, 2005                                  /s/ Elias Vamvakas
                                                   ----------------------
                                                   Elias Vamvakas
                                                   Chief Executive Officer


                                      -27-
K.L.R. v. M.D.O. and J.C.O.

2160714

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

August 23, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Case 3:04-cv-00677-B Document 18 Filed 08/18/04 Page 1 of 1 PageID 192