alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2019312EN.01000502.xml

| 16.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 312/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 312/5

---

Appeal brought on 11 June 2019 by SA Close, Cegelec against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 9 April 2019 in Case T-259/15, Close and Cegelec v Parliament

(Case C-447/19 P)

(2019/C 312/07)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellants: SA Close, Cegelec (represented by: J.-L. Teheux, J.-M. Rikkers, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment under appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment under appeal;

| — | consequently, grant the form of order sought by the appellants at first instance and, accordingly, annul the decision taken on 19 March 2015 by the Parliament awarding the public works contract in respect of the ‘Project to extend and modernise the Konrad Adenauer Building in Luxembourg’ lot 73 (energy unit), under reference INLO-D-UPIL-T-14-A04, to the consortium ENERGIE-KAD (formed of the companies MERSCH et SCHMITZ PRODUCTION SARL and ENERGOLUX SA) and, in turn, not selecting the appellants’ tender; |
| --- | --- |

—

consequently, grant the form of order sought by the appellants at first instance and, accordingly, annul the decision taken on 19 March 2015 by the Parliament awarding the public works contract in respect of the ‘Project to extend and modernise the Konrad Adenauer Building in Luxembourg’ lot 73 (energy unit), under reference INLO-D-UPIL-T-14-A04, to the consortium ENERGIE-KAD (formed of the companies MERSCH et SCHMITZ PRODUCTION SARL and ENERGOLUX SA) and, in turn, not selecting the appellants’ tender;

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

—

order the Parliament to pay the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appellants claim that the General Court failed to fulfil the obligation to state reasons for the purposes of Article 296 TFEU, Article 113(2) of the financial regulation and Article 161(2) and (3) of the rules of application of the financial regulation.

The General Court also distorted the scope of the second plea in law raised at first instance, attributed incorrect scope to the concept of manifest error of assessment, the principle of sound administration and the obligations stemming from that principle, and made an error of assessment that led to distortion of the facts and evidence.

Lastly, the appellants submit that the judgment under appeal lacks an adequate statement of reasons, in so far as it in no way addresses certain arguments put forward by them.

---
Exhibit
      32.1





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 Annual Report of Optigenex Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB
      for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006 (the "Report"), I, Daniel Zwiren,
      as
      Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
      Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
      of
      2002, that:





(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.




/s/ Daniel ZwirenDaniel
              ZwirenChief
                Executive Officer (Principal
              Executive
                Officer)Dated: April 17, 2007
**Exhibit 8****List of Subsidiaries**           **Jurisdiction of** **Commonly referred to****Subsidiary** **Organization** **as**1. Alumina do Norte do Brasil S.A. — Alunorte Brazil Alunorte       2. Alumínio Brasileio S. A . — Albras Brazil Albras       3. CADAM S.A. Brazil CADAM       4. Caemi Mineração e Metalurgia S.A. Brazil Caemi       5. Companhia Portuária Baia de Sepetiba Brazil CPBS       6. CVRD Overseas Ltd. Cayman Island CVRD Over       7. Ferrovia Centro-Atlântica S.A. Brazil FCA       8. CVRD International S.A. Swiss CVRD International       9. Minerações Brasileiras Reunidas S.A. — MBR Brazil MBR       10. Navegação Vale do Rio Doce S.A. — DOCENAVE Brazil DOCENAVE       11. Pará Pigmentos S.A. Brazil PPSA       12. Rio Doce International Finance Ltd. — RDIF Cayman Island RDIF       13. Rio Doce Limited EUA RDL       14. Rio Doce Manganês S.A. Brazil RDM       15. Rio Doce Manganèse Europe — RDME France RDME       16. Rio Doce Manganese Norway AS — RDMN Norway RDMN       17. Salobo Metais S.A. Brazil Salobo       18. TVV — Terminal de Vila Velha S.A. Brazil TVV       19. Urucum Mineração S.A. Brazil Urucum       20. Vale Overseas Limited Cayman Island Vale Overseas       21. DCNDB Overseas S.A. Brazil DCNDB       22. Mineração Onça Puma Ltda. Brazil Mineração Onça Puma
1
#### George M. PANCOAST and Charlotte Pancoast, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Patti LEE, Roy Britt, Bennet Motor Express, Travis Bogush and Pinnacle Transportation Systems, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 07-5059-cv.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Jan. 13, 2009.

Murray J. Kessler, New Milford, CT, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Karen L. Karpie, Murphy and Karpie, LLC, Bridgeport, CT, Andrew S. Turret, New Haven, CT, for Defendants-Appellees.

Present: Hon. ROBERT A. KATZMANN and Hon. REENA RAGGI, Circuit Judges, Hon. JOHN F. KEENAN, District Judge.1

1

. The Honorable John F. Keenan, of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiffs George and Charlotte Pan-coast appeal from a judgment entered in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Dorsey, J.), dismissing their complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. The complaint alleged personal injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident in Pennsylvania after the Connecticut couple’s car swerved to avoid debris from a collision among the defendants. None of the defendants is alleged to reside or do business in Connecticut.

Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, or, in the alternative, to dismiss for improper venue or transfer venue to Pennsylvania pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). In opposition, plaintiffs maintained that jurisdiction was proper under the Connecticut long-arm statute, “or in the alternative ... venue should be transferred as the court deems fit.” After the motion was fully submitted, but before it was decided, the time for plaintiffs to bring suit in Pennsylvania expired under the state’s statute of limitations.

The district court correctly determined that it lacked personal jurisdiction over the case. Dismissing on this ground, the court stated that it “need not reach the questions regarding venue” and suggested that the issue was moot. From this, it is unclear whether the district court realized its authority, notwithstanding the absence of personal jurisdiction, to transfer the case pursuant to § 1406(a) if the interests of justice so require. *See SongByrd, Inc. v. Estate of Grossman,*206 F.3d 172, 179 n. 9 (2d Cir.2000). Given that both sides requested a transfer, albeit briefly and in the alternative, we remand for the district court to consider whether one would serve the interests of justice in light of the relevant circumstances. *See Corke v. Sameiet M.S. Song of Norway,*572 F.2d 77, 80 (2d *653Cir.1978); *Spar, Inc. v. Info. Res., Inc.,*956 F.2d 392 (2d Cir.1992).

Accordingly, the judgment of dismissal is VACATED AND REMANDED.
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Vegetable Crops Research: Madison, WI
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    ScientistsSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Midwest Area Madison, Wisconsin Vegetable Crops Research Docs





- Newsletter: Allium and Umbelliferae Purpose
- Newsletter: Tables of Contents

Mainheadline bar Welcome to the Vegetable Crops Research Unit For information about where we are located, select About Us
For information about the various research programs in our unit, select Research
For information published from our research, trial results, released cultivars select Products & Services
For a list of the employees at this location, select People & PlacesGo directly to a scientist's page:John Bamberg:Potato Germplasm IntroductionPaul Bethke:Post-harvest physiology of potato tubersJohanne Brunet:Gene FlowDennis Halterman:Potato Disease ResistanceMichael Havey:Onion and Cucurbit GeneticsShelley Jansky:Potato Germplasm EnhancementPhilipp Simon:Carrot and Garlic GeneticsDavid Spooner:Potato Germplasm SystematicsShawn Steffan:Cranberry EntomologyYiqun Weng:Cucumber Genetics and BreedingJuan Zalapa:Cranberry Breeding, Genetics, and Genomics
1567 Pieter Aertsen - Market Woman with Vegetable Stall1567 Pieter Aertsen - Market Woman with Vegetable StallVCRU flier PDFDownloadable flier for our research unit


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
Q4 2014 Exhibit 10.54






TRUSTEE COMPENSATION SUMMARY
(effective January 1, 2015)


Annual Retainers
Our non-employee trustees (other than our Chairman) will receive an annual retainer of $35,000 plus $1,500 per committee meeting. Our Chairman will receive an annual retainer of $110,000, with no additional compensation for committee meetings attended. Our Chairman does not sit on any of our committees, but routinely attends committee meetings in the course of exercising his duties as Chairman. 


Committee Chair Additional Retainers
Our Committee Chairs will receive additional retainers as follows: Audit Committee, $15,000; Corporate Governance/Nominating Committee, $11,000; and Compensation Committee, $11,000.  Audit Committee members were also paid an additional retainer of $3,750. 


Annual Equity Grant
Our non-employee trustees will receive an annual $100,000 common share grant, awarded (a) 50% on the earlier of the annual shareholder meeting date or May 15, and (b) the remaining 50% on December 15.  The number of common shares is determined by the closing price of the common shares on the date of grant. These common shares vest immediately but are restricted in transfer so long as the trustee serves on the Board. 


DCP
Washington REIT has adopted a non-qualified deferred compensation plan for non-employee trustees which was amended and restated effective October 22, 2013. The plan allows any non-employee trustee to defer a percentage or dollar amount of his or her cash compensation and/or all of his or her share compensation. Cash compensation deferred is credited with interest equivalent to the weighted average interest rate on Washington REIT's fixed rate bonds as of December 31 of each calendar year. The non-employee trustee may alternatively elect to designate that all of his or her annual board retainer and/or all of his or her share compensation be converted into restricted share units at the market price of common shares as of the end of the applicable quarter. The restricted share units are credited with an amount equal to the corresponding dividends paid on Washington REIT's common shares. Upon the expiration of a trustee's term, the deferred compensation plus earnings can be paid in either a lump sum or in installments pursuant to a prior election of the trustee, with compensation deferred into restricted share units being paid in the form of shares. Upon a trustee's death, the trustee's beneficiary will receive a lump sum pay out. The plan is unfunded and payments are to be made from general assets of Washington REIT.
*The HONORABLE ANDREW W. BOGUE, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota, sitting by designation.
1 The Honorable Donald D. Alsop, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. ___________ No. 95-3255

___________ Instant Web, Inc.; Victory * Envelope, Inc., * * Appellants, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the v. * District of Minnesota. * U.S. Concord, Inc., * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: June 13, 1996 Filed: August 15, 1996

___________ Before BOWMAN and HEANEY, Circuit Judges, and BOGUE, * District Judge.

___________ PER CURIAM. This case involves a claim by plaintiffs Instant Web, Inc. and Victory Envelope, Inc. that they were overcharged when they prepaid certain loans made to them by defendant U.S. Concord, Inc. The District Court 1 granted summary judgment in favor of defendant. Plaintiffs appeal. Having considered the issues that plaintiffs have raised in this appeal, we conclude that the decision of the District Court was correct. No error of law appears, and an opinion by this Court would lack precedential value. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the District Court without further-2- discussion.
AFFIRMED. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Form of Supplement to Performance Award Agreement



 Exhibit 10.6 
 SAKS INCORPORATED 
 Supplement to Performance Award
Agreement 
 Name of Award Holder: «Name»  
 Effective Date of Award: «Issue_Date» 
 Type of Performance Award:
(check all that apply)        Performance Units  ̈                            Performance Shares  ̈
                                         
                                         
                                         
     Performance Cash  ̈ 
 Amount of Award: 
 If Performance Units, number of Performance Units: «Number_of_Units» 
 If Performance Shares, number of Performance Shares: «Number_of_Shares» 
 If Performance Cash, amount of Performance Cash: «$ Amount of Cash» 
 Dear Award Holder: 
 This letter constitutes an
“Award Supplement” referred to in that certain Performance Award Agreement dated [date of Agreement] (the “Performance Award Agreement”) between Saks Incorporated (the “Company”) and you. You
are hereby notified that the Company has awarded to you the Performance Award, indicated above (the “Performance Awards”). The Performance Award is awarded to you pursuant to and subject to the terms and conditions of
(1) the Saks Incorporated 2009 Long-Term Incentive Plan (the “Plan”), (2) the Performance Award Agreement, and (3) this Award Supplement. 
 The Performance Award will be earned based on the Company’s performance against [each of] the goals indicated below during fiscal year
[            ] (the “Performance Period”) and in accordance with the terms of the Plan, unless the Performance Award vests earlier in accordance with paragraph 3 of
the Agreement. 
 [                                        
                                ] 
 If you earn any Performance Award, it will vest in accordance with the Plan if you have been continuously employed by the Company or one of its subsidiaries
from the effective date of the award specified above through [            ]. You will forfeit all earned portion of the Performance Award if it does not vest accordance with the preceding
sentence. 
  

			
	Saks Incorporated
		
	By:	 	/S/    CHRISTINE A. MORENA
	 Christine A. Morena
 Executive Vice President
 Corporate Human Resources
|   | (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: April 22, 2010 |   |   |   | By:    |   | /s/   Eddie Vakser |
|                       |   |   |   |   |   | Eddie VakserChief Executive Officer |

----
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-11323

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JAIME LUNA RODRIGUEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:97-CR-158-32-P

- - - - - - - - - -

August 19, 1998

Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jaime Luna Rodriguez appeals his guilty-plea conviction and

sentence for conspiracy to import marijuana, to distribute

marijuana, and to possess marijuana with intent to distribute in

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. Rodriguez argues that the district

court erred in determining that he was responsible for

transporting 9000 pounds of marijuana. Rodriguez’ plea agreement

contains a provision in which Rodriguez waived his right to

appeal his sentence unless the sentence was imposed in excess of
No. 97-11323 

-2-

the statutory maximum, was the result of an upward departure, or

was the result of an arithmetic error in the calculation of his

offense level. We have reviewed the record and conclude that the

waiver was informed and voluntary and is therefore binding on

Rodriguez. See United States v. Portillo, 18 F.3d 290, 292 (5th

Cir. 1994). Rodriguez’ claim that the district court erred in

calculating the amount of marijuana attributable to him is barred

by the waiver-of-appeal provision. Because Rodriguez’ sentence

was not in excess of the statutory maximum, was not imposed as a

result of an upward departure, and was not imposed as a result of

an arithmetic error in the calculation of his offense level, he

may not challenge his sentence on appeal. Rodriguez’ appeal is

without arguable merit. Accordingly, it is DISMISSED. 5th Cir.

R. 42.2.

APPEAL DISMISSED.
#### In the Matter of Christopher Randall, Petitioner, v Brian Fischer, as Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, Respondent.

[942 NYS2d 678]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Substantial evidence in the form of the misbehavior report, the transcript of petitioner’s telephone conversations with his girlfriend, testimony from an investigator that the telephone conversations between petitioner and his girlfriend contained coded words for contraband and the signed statement by petitioner’s girlfriend that he had assisted her efforts to smuggle the drugs and scalpels into the facility supports the determination finding petitioner guilty of smuggling, conspiring to possess drugs and weapons and violating facility visitation *(see Matter of Cognata v Fischer,*85 AD3d 1456, 1457 [2011]; *Matter of Quartieri v New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs.,*70 AD3d 1071, 1072 [2010]). We are unpersuaded by petitioner’s contention that his assistance was inadequate because he was not provided with certain documentation. A review of the record reveals that certain of those documents were confidential, nonexistent or irrelevant to the smuggling and conspiracy charges *(see Matter of Boggs v Martuscello,*84 AD3d 1625, 1626 [2011]). The remaining document, specifically the incomplete unusual incident report and the written statement of petitioner’s girlfriend, were read into the record at the hearing and *1303petitioner has demonstrated no prejudice from any alleged deficiencies (see *Matter of Jimenez v Fischer,*56 AD3d 924, 925 [2008]).

Petitioner’s remaining contentions, including that he was denied the right to call witnesses and that the Hearing Officer was biased, have been reviewed and found to be without merit.

Mercure, J.P, Rose, Lahtinen, Malone Jr. and McCarthy, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
Exhibit 23.1














CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM








We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Forms S-3 (File No. 333-160568 and 333-139417) and Form S-8 (Nos. 333-168138, 333-164560, 333-143373 and 333-141576) of ULURU Inc. of our report dated March 31, 2011 relating to the consolidated financial statements for the two years ended December 31, 2010 which appear in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of ULURU Inc. filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2011.





Our report dated March 31, 2011 contains an explanatory paragraph that states that ULURU Inc. has suffered recurring losses from operations, negative cash flows from operating activities, and is dependent upon raising additional funds from strategic transactions, sales of equity, and/or issuance of debt, all of which raise substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern.  The consolidated financial statements do not include any adjustments that might result from the outcome of that uncertainty.











/s/ Lane Gorman Trubitt, PLLCLane Gorman Trubitt, PLLC

Dallas, Texas

March 31, 2011