alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1626 CA 10-01408 PRESENT: MARTOCHE, J.P., FAHEY, CARNI, LINDLEY, AND SCONIERS, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK, PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT-RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

TOWN OF AMHERST, SATISH MOHAN, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SUPERVISOR OF TOWN OF AMHERST, TOWN BOARD OF TOWN OF AMHERST, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF TOWN OF AMHERST, GMH COMMUNITIES, LP, COLLEGE PARK INVESTMENTS, LLC, DAVID LADE, NANCY LADE, WILLIAM S. SCHLEGEL, JOSE OLIVERA, MICHELE OLIVERA, LESTER C. BUSDIECKER, MATTHEW MAROTTA, PAMELA MAROTTA, MARK R. KELLAM, PAUL CUMMINS, PAMELA CUMMINS, ETTORE INFANTI, MARTIN KEITZ, KIMBERLY MAST, JEFFREY BROOKS, BARBARA BROOKS, DANIEL P. HULL, THOMAS KETCHUM, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF TOWN OF AMHERST BUILDING DEPARTMENT, RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS, AND EUGENE TENNEY, RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. (APPEAL NO. 3.)

HODGSON RUSS LLP, BUFFALO (BENJAMIN M. ZUFFRANIERI, JR., OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT-RESPONDENT.

E. THOMAS JONES, TOWN ATTORNEY, WILLIAMSVILLE (ALAN P. MCCRACKEN OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS TOWN OF AMHERST, SATISH MOHAN, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SUPERVISOR OF TOWN OF AMHERST, TOWN BOARD OF TOWN OF AMHERST, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF TOWN OF AMHERST AND THOMAS KETCHUM, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF TOWN OF AMHERST BUILDING DEPARTMENT.

LAW OFFICES OF EUGENE C. TENNEY, BUFFALO (EUGENE C. TENNEY OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

HOPKINS & SORGI, PLLC, WILLIAMSVILLE (SEAN W. HOPKINS OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS GMH COMMUNITIES, LP, COLLEGE PARK INVESTMENTS, LLC, DAVID LADE, NANCY LADE, WILLIAM S. SCHLEGEL, JOSE OLIVERA, MICHELE OLIVERA, LESTER C. BUSDIECKER, MATTHEW MAROTTA, PAMELA MAROTTA, MARK R. KELLAM, PAUL CUMMINS, PAMELA CUMMINS, ETTORE INFANTI, MARTIN KEITZ, KIMBERLY MAST, JEFFREY BROOKS, BARBARA BROOKS AND DANIEL P. HULL.-2- 1626 CA 10-01408
Appeal and cross appeal from a judgment (denominated order and judgment) of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Gerald J. Whalen, J.), entered June 9, 2010 in a CPLR article 78 proceeding and a declaratory judgment action. The judgment granted the motions of respondents/defendants to dismiss the petition/complaint.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Same Memorandum as in Matter of State Univ. of N.Y. v Town of Amherst ([appeal No. 1] ___ AD3d ___ [Feb. 18, 2011]).

Entered: February 18, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan Clerk of the Court
Exhibit 32.2

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 Horizon Lines Holding Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 25, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, M. Mark Urbania, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial 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) The 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 Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company.



|                                                                                               
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                               
|/s/    M. MARK
URBANIA                                                                         
|M. Mark Urbania Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial
Officer)

July 28, 2006
# C_2021163EN.01002801.xml

| 3.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 163/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 163/28

---

Judgment of the General Court of 10 March 2021 — Hauz 1929 v EUIPO — Houzz (HAUZ NEW YORK)

(Case T-67/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark HAUZ NEW YORK - Earlier EU word mark HOUZZ - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2021/C 163/36)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Hauz 1929 Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: N. Lyberis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: V. Ruzek, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Houzz, Inc. (Palo Alto, California, United States)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 November 2019 (Case R 886/2019-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Houzz and Hauz 1929.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Hauz 1929 Ltd to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Hauz 1929 Ltd to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 95, 23.3.2020.

---
March 31, 2007

Mr. Rick Jackson, P. Eng. Enterra Energy Trust

2600, 500 - 4t Avenue S. W. Calgary, StateAlberta T2P 2V6 country-regionplaceCanada

Dear Mr. Jackson:

Re: Consent of MHA Petroleum Consultants, Inc.

We consent to the incorporation by reference in this annual report on Form 40-F of Enterra Energy Trust, which is being filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, of our report entitled "Evaluation of the Natural Gas Reserves of Enterra Energy Trust, Powder River Basin, Wyoming (As of December 31, 2006)", evaluating reserves of Enterra Energy Trust as of December 31, 2006 included in the 2006 Annual Information Form of Enterra Energy Trust (the "AIF"), and to the references to our firm in the AIF.

We also consent to the incorporation by reference of references to our firm and of information derived from our report entitled "Evaluation of the Natural Gas Reserves of Enterra Energy Trust, Powder River Basin, Wyoming (As of December 31, 2006)", evaluating reserves of Enterra Energy Trust as of December 31, 2006 appearing in the annual report on Form 40-F of Enterra Energy Trust for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006, into the registration statement on Form F-10 Registration Statement (No. 333-129601), the registration statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-120996) and the Registration Statements on Form F-3 (Nos. 333-113609 and 333-115318).



Sincerely,

/s/ John P. Seidle

John P. Seidle

Vice President



Streetaddress14142 Denver West Parkway, Suite 190

CityLakewood, StateColorado PostalCode80401 country-regionUSA

Telephone: 303-277-0270 Fax: 303-277-0276
# C_2016211EN.01006301.xml

| 13.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/63 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/63

---

Action brought on 18 April 2016 — Wessel-Werk v EUIPO — Wolf PVG (Suction nozzles for vacuum cleaners)

(Case T-175/16)

(2016/C 211/78)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Wessel-Werk GmbH (Reichshof, Germany) (represented by: C. Becker, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Wolf PVG GmbH & Co. KG (Vlotho, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the design at issue: The applicant

Design at issue: Community design No 725932-0008 (Suction nozzles for vacuum cleaners)

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 February 2016 in Case R 1725/2014-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order the unsuccessful parties to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the unsuccessful parties to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation No 6/2002; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation No 6/2002;

| — | Infringement of Article 63(1) of Regulation No 6/2002; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 63(1) of Regulation No 6/2002;

| — | Infringement of Article 62 of Regulation No 6/2002. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 62 of Regulation No 6/2002.

---
Exhibit
32.1


Chief
Executive Officer Certification (Section 906)








CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C.,SECTION
1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 (as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002), I, the
undersigned Chief Executive Officer of Nuclear Solutions, Inc., (the “Company”),
herby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the Annual Report on Form 10-K
of the Company for the period ended December 31, 2008 (the “Report”) fully
complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operation of the Company.  A signed original of this written statement
required by Section 906 has been provided to the registrant and will be retained
by it and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.


Date:
      April 15, 2009
              
              /s/ Patrick
      HerdaPatrick
      Herda, CEO
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL 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, 2006 (the Periodic Report), I, Robert C. McPherson, III, Chief Financial 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, results of operations and cash flows of the Company.



|                      |  |                                                                           
|--------------------- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: March 12, 2007 |  | /s/ ROBERT C.
MCPHERSON, III                                              
|                      |  | Robert C. McPherson, III Senior Vice President and Chief Financial 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.
[Cite as State v. Morrison, 2022-Ohio-104.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

ASHTABULA COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 - v - 

HENRY C. MORRISON, 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

CASE NOS. 2021-A-0039

 2021-A-0040 

 2021-A-0041 

 2021-A-0043 

Criminal Appeals from the 

Court of Common Pleas 

Trial Court Nos. 2021 CR 00405 

 2021 CR 00349 

 2021 CR 00096 

 2021 CR 00078 

 

M E M O R A N D U M 

O P I N I O N 

Decided: January 18, 2022 

Judgment: Appeals dismissed 

Colleen Mary O’Toole, Ashtabula County Prosecutor, 25 West Jefferson Street, 

Jefferson, OH 44047 (For Plaintiff-Appellee). 

Henry C. Morrison, pro se, PID# A783322, North Central Correctional Institution,

P.O. Box 1812, Marion, OH 43302 (Defendant-Appellant). 

CYNTHIA WESTCOTT RICE, J. 

{¶1} On December 9, 2021, appellant, Henry C. Morrison, pro se, filed a notice 

of appeal in Ashtabula C.P. No. 2021 CR 00405 (11th Dist. No. 2021-A-0039) and 2021 

CR 00349 (11th Dist. No. 2021-A-0040) from the trial court’s October 12, 2021 sentencing 

entry. 
2 

Case Nos. 2021-A-0039, 2021-A-0040, 2021-A-0041, 2021-A-0043

{¶2} On the same date, appellant filed a notice of appeal in 2021 CR 00096 (11th 

Dist. No. 2021-A-0041) and 2021 CR 00078 (11th Dist. No. 2021-A-0043) from the trial 

court’s September 17, 2021 sentencing entry. 

{¶3} The appeals were consolidated by this court on December 23, 2021. 

{¶4} A timely notice of appeal was due in 2021-A-0039 and 2021-A-0040 no later 

than November 12, 2021, which was not a holiday or weekend. Thus, the appeals are 

untimely filed by 27 days. 

{¶5} A timely notice of appeal was due in 2021-A-0041 and 2021-A-0043 by 

October 18, 2021, which was not a holiday or weekend. Thus, the appeals are untimely 

filed by approximately one and one-half months. 

{¶6} “* * * [A] party who wishes to appeal from an order that is final upon its entry 

shall file the notice of appeal required by App.R. 3 within 30 days of that entry.” App.R. 

4(A)(1). 

{¶7} “(1) After the expiration of the thirty day period provided by App.R. 4(A) for 

the filing of a notice of appeal as of right, an appeal may be taken by a defendant with 

leave of the court to which the appeal is taken in the following classes of cases: 

{¶8} “(a) Criminal proceedings; * * * 

{¶9} “(2) A motion for leave to appeal shall be filed with the court of appeals and 

shall set forth the reasons for the failure of the appellant to perfect an appeal as of right * 

* *.” App.R. 5(A). 

{¶10} Appellant has neither complied with the thirty-day rule set forth in App.R. 

4(A)(1) nor sought leave to appeal under App.R. 5(A). Thus, this court is without 
3 

Case Nos. 2021-A-0039, 2021-A-0040, 2021-A-0041, 2021-A-0043

jurisdiction to consider his appeals. Appellant has a remedy of filing an untimely criminal 

appeal under App.R. 5(A). 

{¶11} Appeals dismissed, sua sponte, as untimely. 

THOMAS R. WRIGHT, P.J., 

MARY JANE TRAPP, J., 

concur.
UN PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17
- 6596

GREGORY L. ROSS , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. GEORGE SOLOMON , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina , at Greensboro

. Loretta Copeland Biggs , District Judge. ( 1:17

- cv - 00281

- LCB

- LPA )

Submitted : September 26, 2017 Decided: September 28, 2017

Before NIEMEYER and TRAXLER , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Gregory Lynn Ross , Appellant Pro Se

. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Gregory Lynn Ross seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and d ismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition as successive and unauthorized . The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificat e of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasona ble jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Ross has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten tions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
# C_2020433EN.01003301.xml

| 14.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 433/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 433/33

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht München (Germany) lodged on 1 October 2020 — Vodafone Kabel Deutschland GmbH v Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e.V.

(Case C-484/20)

(2020/C 433/41)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht München

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Vodafone Kabel Deutschland GmbH

Defendant: Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e.V.

Question referred

Is Article 62(4) of Directive 2015/2366 (1) to be interpreted in such a way that it prevents a national regulation or practice, in the form of a transitional provision, that only allows the prohibition of charges for the use of payment instruments and payment services in accordance with the corresponding national implementing provision in relation to ongoing contractual obligations with consumers, if the underlying contractual obligation arose after 13 January 2018, but not if the underlying contractual obligation arose prior to 13 January 2018, where settlement of (other) payment transactions does not start until after 13 January 2018?

---

(1)  Directive (EU) 2015/2366 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on payment services in the internal market, amending Directives 2002/65/EC, 2009/110/EC and 2013/36/EU and Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010, and repealing Directive 2007/64/EC (OJ 2015 L 337, p. 35).

---
# C_2016211EN.01006101.xml

| 13.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/61 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/61

---

Action brought on 15 April 2016 — Metronia v EUIPO — Zitro IP (TRIPLE O NADA)

(Case T-159/16)

(2016/C 211/75)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Metronia, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: A. Vela Ballesteros, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Zitro IP Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘TRIPLE O NADA’ — Application for registration No 11 603 529

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 February 2016 in Case R 2605/2014-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | uphold the action brought against the decision of the Board of Appeal of 15 February 2016 and allow the EU trade mark applied for; |
| --- | --- |

—

uphold the action brought against the decision of the Board of Appeal of 15 February 2016 and allow the EU trade mark applied for;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
Case 3:04-cr-00183-M Document 66 Filed 11/09/06 Page 1 of 1 PageID 166
#### E. H. Browder and Mary R. Browder, *Appellants,*v. Mollie Wollner, a Widow, Also Known as Molly Wollner, *Appellee.*

Division B.

Decision Filed January 5, 1928.

*Julian Hartridge,*for Appellants;

*Sabel é Beinstine,*for Appellee.

Per Curiam.-

This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the order herein, and briefs and arguments of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the Court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that there is no error in the said order; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and decreed by the Court that the said order of the Circuit Court be, and the same is hereby affirmed.

See Wiltse on Mortgage Foreclosure, Secs. 245, 971; Roth v. Galva State Bank, 186 Ill. App. 236, 41 C. J. 725, 746; Brownson v. Hannah, 93 Fla. 223, 111 So. 731.

Affirmed.

Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
Amber Lynn Lange FRAZIER v. Shelton Lundra FRAZIER

NO. 2019-CJ-0129

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 6, 2019

*904Denied.
# C_2018408EN.01001502.xml

| 12.11.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 408/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.11.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 408/15

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 September 2018 — Infineon Technologies AG v European Commission

(Case C-99/17 P) (1)

((Appeal - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for smart card chips - Network of bilateral contacts - Exchanges of commercially sensitive information - Challenge of the authenticity of the evidence - Rights of the defence - Restriction of competition ‘by object’ - Single and continuous infringement - Judicial review - Unlimited jurisdiction - Scope - Calculation of the amount of the fine))

(2018/C 408/17)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Infineon Technologies AG (represented by: M. Dreher, T. Lübbig and M. Klusmann, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Biolan, A. Dawes and J. Norris-Usher, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 15 December 2016, Infineon Technologies v Commission (T-758/14, not published, EU:T:2016:737), inasmuch as the General Court rejected the appellant’s claim in the alternative for a reduction of the amount of the fine that the European Commission imposed on it; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 15 December 2016, Infineon Technologies v Commission (T-758/14, not published, EU:T:2016:737), inasmuch as the General Court rejected the appellant’s claim in the alternative for a reduction of the amount of the fine that the European Commission imposed on it;

| 2. | Dismisses the appeal as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the appeal as to the remainder;

| 3. | Refers the case back to the General Court for it to give judgment on the claim for a reduction of the amount of the fine imposed on Infineon Technologies AG in the light of the sixth plea; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Refers the case back to the General Court for it to give judgment on the claim for a reduction of the amount of the fine imposed on Infineon Technologies AG in the light of the sixth plea;

| 4. | Reserves the costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Reserves the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 168, 29.5.2017.

---
Case 3:04-cv-00556-M Document 35 Filed 11/05/04 Page 1 of 2 PageID 207
Case 3:04-cv-00556-M Document 35 Filed 11/05/04 Page 2 of 2 PageID 208
Case 3:03-cv-01824-P Document 13 Filed 04/26/05 Page 1 of 7 PageID 69
 

 Case 3:03-cv-01824-P Document 13 Filed 04/26/05 Page 2 of 7 PageID 70
 

 Case 3:03-cv-01824-P Document 13 Filed 04/26/05 Page 3 of 7 PageID 71
 

 Case 3:03-cv-01824-P Document 13 Filed 04/26/05 Page 4 of 7 PageID 72
 

 Case 3:03-cv-01824-P Document 13 Filed 04/26/05 Page 5 of 7 PageID 73
 

 Case 3:03-cv-01824-P Document 13 Filed 04/26/05 Page 6 of 7 PageID 74
 

 Case 3:03-cv-01824-P Document 13 Filed 04/26/05 Page 7 of 7 PageID 75