alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2017213EN.01003101.xml

| 3.7.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 213/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.7.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 213/31

---

Action brought on 6 April 2017 — Amplexor Luxembourg v Commission

(Case T-211/17)

(2017/C 213/42)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Amplexor Luxembourg Sàrl (Bertrange, Luxemburg) (represented by J.-F. Steichen, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | accept the present application as formally correct; |
| --- | --- |

—

accept the present application as formally correct;

| — | annul the decision of the Publications Office of the European Union of 13 February 2017 as to its substance; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Publications Office of the European Union of 13 February 2017 as to its substance;

| — | accordingly, cancel the call for tenders No 10651; |
| --- | --- |

—

accordingly, cancel the call for tenders No 10651;

| — | order the defendant to pay all the costs; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay all the costs;

| — | reserve for the applicant all other rights, pleas and actions. |
| --- | --- |

—

reserve for the applicant all other rights, pleas and actions.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

This action seeks the annulment of the decision of the Publications Office of the European Union of 13 February 2017 in so far as it places the applicant in second position in the call for tenders No AO 10651 — Processing of notices for publication in the Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union (OJ S) (OJ 2016/S 143-258115).

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

| 1. | The first plea in law alleges infringement of the rules and principles of EU law in so far as the Publications Office, by offering to tenderers which were not its contracting partners at the time of the submission the chance to benefit from greater funding in order to finance take-over costs, manifestly infringed the principle of equality. According to the applicant, such an approach, besides being gravely discriminatory, seriously undermines both the raison d’être and the foundations of public procurement procedures. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The first plea in law alleges infringement of the rules and principles of EU law in so far as the Publications Office, by offering to tenderers which were not its contracting partners at the time of the submission the chance to benefit from greater funding in order to finance take-over costs, manifestly infringed the principle of equality. According to the applicant, such an approach, besides being gravely discriminatory, seriously undermines both the raison d’être and the foundations of public procurement procedures.

raison d’être

| 2. | The second plea in law alleges misuse of power. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The second plea in law alleges misuse of power.

---
# 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 filing of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2006 (the Report) by CapSource Financial, Inc. (Registrant), I,
Fred C. Boethling, the Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of 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 Registrant.
|-- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A signed original of this
written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature
that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to
CapSource Financial, Inc. and will be retained by CapSource Financial, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

| | DATE:   May 15, 2006 | By:   | /s/   Fred C. Boethling                 
| | -------------------- | ----- | ----------------------------------------
| |                      | Name: | Fred C. BoethlingChief Executive Officer
|

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>

The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Century
Properties Fund XII and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements. 

</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>   1

       
<S>                                      <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                                DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                          631,000
<SECURITIES>                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   217,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                          0
<INVENTORY>                                           0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                      0
<PP&E>                                       12,180,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              (4,637,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                8,592,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                 0
<BONDS>                                       3,002,000
<COMMON>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<OTHER-SE>                                    5,347,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  8,592,000
<SALES>                                               0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              2,389,000
<CGS>                                                 0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 1,315,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              238,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 893,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                          0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             893,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                    893,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     25.26
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     25.26
Case 1:07-cv-05354-AKH     Document 6      Filed 09/06/2007     Page 1 of 2

Case 1:07-cv-05354-AKH     Document 6      Filed 09/06/2007     Page 2 of 2
151 So. 922

#### Earle J. OSBORNE v. Leila Mae OSBORNE.

6 Div. 378.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Dec. 1, 1933.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution.
EXHIBIT 31.2 CERTIFICATION Certification of Chief Financial Officer  I,  Melissa Schessler as Chief Financial Officer (CFO),  certify  that:  1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Dialpoint Communications Corporation; 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 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 officers 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, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by       others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer'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 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 financial reporting;  5. The small business issuer's other certifying officers 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 small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):  (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.  Date: May 22, 2008 By:/s/ Eileen Casey Eileen Casey, Chief Financial Officer (CFO)
---

EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Revett Minerals Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the
undersigned hereby certifies, 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) 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 result of operations of the Company.

/s/ John Shanahan _______________________________________
John Shanahan President and Chief Executive Officer Date: November
15, 2010

A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Revett Minerals Inc. and will be retained by Revett Minerals Inc. and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
#### Michael Tyrone PERRY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SCDC; Lee Ci; A.J. Padula, Warden; Captain Ronnie Cribb; SMU Administrator Bruce Oberman; William A. Byars, Director over SCDC; Doctor Edward Stahl; Nurse Administrator Yvonne McDonald; IGC C James, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 13-6402.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 23, 2013.

Decided: May 29, 2013.

Michael Tyrone Perry, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Michael Pruitt, McDonald, Patrick, Poston, Hemphill & Roper, LLC, Greenwood, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Before MOTZ and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Michael Tyrone Perry appeals the district court’s orders accepting *the*recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint and denying reconsidera*273tion. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Perry v. South Carolina Dep’t of Corr.,*No. 4:12-cv-01205-RMG, 2013 WL 6818902013 WL 1010353 (D.S.C. Feb. 25 & Mar. 14, 2013). We also deny Perry’s motions to assign counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 98 (Monday, May 21, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 27954]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-12683]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. EL00-95-034 and EL00-98-033]


San Diego Gas & Electric Company, Complainant, v. Sellers of 
Energy and Ancillary Services Into Markets Operated by the California 
Independent System Operator and the California Power Exchange, 
Respondents, et al.; Notice of Filing

May 15, 2001.
    Take notice that on May 11, 2001, the California Independent System 
Operator Corporation (ISO) tendered a filing in compliance with the 
Commission's April 26, 2001, Order in the above-captioned dockets.
    The ISO states that this filing has been served on the California 
Public Utilities Commission, on all parties on the official service 
lists maintained by the Secretary for Docket Nos. EL00-95-000, et al., 
and on all entities that have entered into Participating Generator 
Agreements with the ISO.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice 
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions and 
protest should be filed on or before May 22, 2001. Protests will be 
considered by the Commission to determine the appropriate action to be 
taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to 
intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection. This filing may also be viewed on 
the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-
2222 for assistance). Comments, protests and interventions may be filed 
electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site 
at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-12683 Filed 5-18-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
NODAL EXCHANGE RULEBOOK

2023v5 7

not limited to: On-Peak and Off-Peak. These classes have variable lot sizes that 

are defined by each ISO and determined by the set of hours in the ISO market 

against which the Nodal Contract settles. Other Nodal Contracts, such as natural 

gas, have fixed lot sizes as specified in the Contract Specifications.

1.30 Contract Location. The location or locations against which a Nodal Contract 

settles. For example, the Contract Location for Nodal Contracts on power is the 

Contract Node against which the Nodal Contract settles.

1.31 Contract Node. For power contracts, the Node or Nodes against which the Nodal 

Contract settles.

1.32 Contract Specifications. The descriptions of the contractual items for each Nodal 

Contract as set forth in the document available in Appendix A. Items described in 

the Contract Specifications referenced in this Rulebook include “Last Trading 

Day,” “Daily Settlement Price,” and “Final Settlement Price.”

1.33 Contract Term. The length of the settling period for the Nodal Contract, including, 

but not limited to, monthly, weekly and daily Nodal Contracts.

1.34 Customer means a Person who uses an FCM Participant as an agent in connection 

with trading Nodal Contracts. 

1.35 Daily Settlement Price has the meaning set forth in Rule 4.10.1(a).

1.36 Deliverable Product or Underlying Contract, as applicable, has the meaning set 

forth in the Contract Specifications of Physically Settled Nodal Contracts.

1.37 Direct Access means a direct connection by a Clearing Member or Person to the 

System to enter Orders for Nodal Contracts for execution, without the Order 

passing through the credit and risk control infrastructure of a Clearing Member. 

1.38 Director. An individual serving on the Board. 

1.39 Disciplinary Action has the meaning set forth in Rule 7.1. 

1.40 Disciplinary Panel. Either or both of a Review Panel and a Hearing Panel, as the 

context requires. 

1.41 Eligible Contract Participant or ECP has the meaning set forth in Section 1a(18) 

of the CEA and CFTC Regulation 1.3. 

1.42 EFP has the meaning set forth in Rule 4.7.1(a).

1.421.43 EFR has the meaning set forth in 4.7.1(b)

1.44 EFRP has the meaning set forth in Rule 4.7.

1.431.45 EFS has the meaning set forth in 4.7.1(b)
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 19

- 00219

- CV

E L D URANGUENSE F ORT W ORTH I NC

.

D / B / A E L D URANGUENSE

, Appellant

V

.

T EXAS A LCOHOLIC B EVERAGE

C OMMISSION , Appellee §

§

§

§ On Appeal from the 352nd District

Court

of Tarrant C ou nty (352

- 307859

- 19)

March 26, 2020

Opinion by Justice Bassel

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial

court is a ffirmed.

It is further ordered that El Duranguense Fort Worth Inc. shall pay all of the

costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Dabney Bassel

Justice Dabney Bassel
# C_2019072EN.01002302.xml

| 25.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/23

---

Judgment of the General Court of 11. December 2018 — BTB Holding Investments and Duferco Participations Holding v Commission

(Case T-100/17) (1)

((State aid - Steel industry - Aid granted by Belgium in favour of a number of undertakings in the iron and steel industry - Decision declaring that aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery - Obligation to state reasons - Concept of State aid - Advantage - Private investor test))

(2019/C 72/29)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: BTB Holding Investments SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) and Duferco Participations Holding SA (Luxembourg) (represented by: J.-F. Bellis, R. Luff, M. Favart and Q. Declève, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka, G. Luengo and É. Gippini Fournier, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicants: Foreign Strategic Investments Holding (FSIH) (Liège, Belgium) (represented by: A. Verheyden and P. Laconte, lawyers)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU and seeking partial annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2016/2041 of 20 January 2016 on State aid SA.33926 2013/C (ex 2013/NN, 2011/CP) granted by Belgium to Duferco (OJ 2016 L 314, p. 22).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders BTB Holding Investments SA and Duferco Participations Holding SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders BTB Holding Investments SA and Duferco Participations Holding SA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 129, 24.4.2017.

---
EXHIBIT 31.1


                                 CERTIFICATIONS

     I, Richard P. Rainey, certify that:

     1.   I have reviewed this report on Form 10-QSB of AVAX Technologies, Inc.;

     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 annual
report;

     3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this 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 report;

     4.   The registrant's other certifying officers 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 we 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 report is being
     prepared;

          (b)  Reserved.

          (c)  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

          (d)  disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
     control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most
     recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case
     of an 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 officers 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 the registrant'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 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 24, 2004


/s/ Richard P. Rainey
-----------------------------------
Richard P. Rainey
President (Principal Executive Officer)