alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2019328EN.01004302.xml

| 30.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/43

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2019 — Ceobus and Others v Commission

(Case T-330/17) (1)

(State aid - Aid scheme unlawfully implemented by France between 1994 and 2008 - Investment subsidies awarded by the Île-de-France region - Decision declaring the aid scheme compatible with the internal market - Concepts of ‘existing aid’ and ‘new aid’ - Article 107 TFEU - Article 108 TFEU - Article 1, (b) (i) and (v) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 - Limitation period - Article 17 of Regulation 2015/1589)

(2019/C 328/47)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Ceobus (Génicourt, France) and the other applicants whose names are listed in the annex to the judgment (represented initially by D. de Combles de Nayves and subsequently by F. Segalen, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Armati, C. Georgieva-Kecsmar and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment in part of Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1470 of 2 February 2017 on State aid schemes SA.26763 2014/C (ex 2012/NN) implemented by France in favour of bus transport undertakings in the Île-de-France Region (OJ 2017 L 209, p. 24).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the application; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the application;

| 2. | Orders Ceobus and the other applicants whose names are listed in the annex to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ceobus and the other applicants whose names are listed in the annex to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 231, 17.7.2017.

---
By Electronic l’ViaiI

Ms. Melissa Jurgens

Secretary

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

1155 21s1 Street,N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20581

DDR Rule Filing: 2015-02

Re: Amendments to DTCC Data Repository (U.S.) LLC Rulebook Pursuant to Section 5c(c) (1) of the Commodity Exchange Act and Commission Regulation § 40.6

Dear Ms. Jurgens:

Trading

Pursuant to Section 5c(c)(1) of the Commodity Exchange Act, as amended, and Commodity Futures Commission (the “Commission” or “CFTC”) Regulation § 40.6, DTCC Data Repository (U.S.) LLC (“DDR”) submits, by written certification, amendments to the DTCC Data Repository ((IS.) LLC Rulebook (“DDR Rulebook”), including changes to the DDR Operating Procedures, enumerated below.

I. DDR has amended the cover page ofthe DDR Rulebook to update the effective date.

II.

Mandatory

DDR has amended DDR Rulebook Section 3.3.3.2 Exception and Exemptions from

Action

Clearing Requirements under US Law to refer to the current CFTC Staff No- Letter 14-144 on the Treasury Affiliate End-User Exception.

The updates to the DDR Rulebook. including the DDR Operating Procedures, outlined in this letter

Operating

are not material modifications and do not require approved by the DDR Board pursuant to DDR Procedures Important Legal InfOrmation Section 3 Notices.

regulations

DDR certifies that these amendments comply with the Commodity Exchange Act and the rules and promulgated by the Commission thereunder, No substantive opposing views have been expressed by Users or others with respect to the amendments. DDR further certifies that, concurrent
Sincerely.

Debra W. Cook

Counsel

Enclosures
# C_2019246EN.01002201.xml

| 22.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 246/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 246/22

---

Order of the General Court of 15 May 2019 — Metrans v Commission and INEA

(Case T-262/17) (1)

(Action for annulment - Commission decision granting financing for the ‘Multimodal Container Terminal Paskov, Phase III’ and ‘Intermodal Terminal Mělník, Phases 2 and 3’ transport project proposals under the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) - Period allowed for commencing proceedings - Point from which time starts to run - Delay - Inadmissibility)

(2019/C 246/22)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Metrans a.s. (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: A. Schwarz, lawyer)

Defendants: European Commission (represented by: J. Hottiaux and J. Samnadda, acting as Agents), Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (represented by: I. Ramallo and D. Silhol, acting as Agents, and A. Duron, lawyer)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for (i) annulment of Commission Implementing Decision C(2016) 5047 final of 5 August 2016 establishing the list of proposals selected for receiving EU financial assistance in the field of Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) — Transport sector following the calls for proposals launched on 5 November 2015 based on the Multi-Annual Work Programme, in so far as it concerns two proposals entitled ‘Multimodal Container Terminal Paskov, Phase III’ and ‘Intermodal Terminal Mělník, Phases 2 and 3’, and (ii) annulment of the two grant agreements relating to those two proposals signed by the INEA.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | Metrans a.s. shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission and by the Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (INEA). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Metrans a.s. shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission and by the Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (INEA).

---

(1)  OJ C 239, 24.7.2017.

---
144 So. 583

#### Floyd HILL v. STATE.

6 Div. 264.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Nov. 25, 1932.

X B. Powell, of Jasper, for petitioner.

Thos. E. Knight, Jr., Atty. Gen., opposed.

THOMAS, X

Petition of Floyd Hill for certiorari to the Court of Appeals to review and revise the judgment and decision of that court in Hill v. State, 144 So. 582.

Writ denied.

ANDERSON, C. X, and BROWN and KNIGHT, ’JX, concur.
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

561 KA 15-00166 PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., CARNI, NEMOYER, CURRAN, AND TROUTMAN, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ROBERT L. JONES, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (DAVID R. JUERGENS OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (STEPHEN X. O’BRIEN OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (James J. Piampiano, J.), rendered October 2, 2014. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (Penal Law § 265.03 [3]). Contrary to defendant’s contention, the record establishes that defendant knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived the right to appeal ( see People v Taggart , 124 AD3d 1362, 1362; see generally People v Lopez , 6 NY3d 248, 256), and that valid waiver by its terms forecloses any challenge by defendant to the severity of the sentence ( see Lopez , 6 NY3d at 255; see generally People v Hidalgo , 91 NY2d 733, 737). Although County Court failed to apprise defendant of the maximum sentence he could receive upon his conviction, “ ‘the requirement that a defendant be apprised of [the] maximum sentence in order for a waiver to be valid does not apply in a situation such as this[,] where there is a specific sentence promise at the time of the waiver’ ” ( People v Semple , 23 AD3d 1058, 1059, lv denied 6 NY3d 852; see People v Brown , 115 AD3d 1204, 1206, lv denied 23 NY3d 1060).

Entered: April 28, 2017 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
Exhibit 31.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

As Adopted Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Richard J.
Heckmann, certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009.
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|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;
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: January 6, 2010



|       |  |                        
|------ |  | -----------------------
|By:    |  | /s/ Richard J. Heckmann
|Name:  |  | Richard J. Heckmann    
|Title: |  | Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION REQUIRED BY SECTION 1350

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form
10-Q of NiMin Energy Corp. (the Company) for the period ended June 30, 2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Clarence Cottman, III, Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, and Jonathan S. Wimbish, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, 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, 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.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                         
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                         
|/s/ Clarence Cottman, III                                                
|Clarence Cottman, III
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
August 9, 2012



|                                                          
|----------------------------------------------------------
|                                                          
|/s/ Jonathan S. Wimbish                                   
|Jonathan S. Wimbish Chief
Financial Officer August 9, 2012
# C_2019432EN.01005402.xml

| 23.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/54

---

Order of the General Court of 24 October 2019 — Liaño Reig v SRB

(Case T-557/17) (1)

(Action for annulment - Economic and monetary policy - Compensation claim - Single resolution mechanism for credit institutions and certain investment firms - Resolution procedure - Resolution scheme for Banco Popular Español - Partial annulment - Non-severability - Inadmissibility)

(2019/C 432/64)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Carmen Liaño Reig (Alcobendas, Spain) (represented by: F. López Antón, lawyer)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (represented by: B. Meyring, S. Schelo, F. Málaga Diéguez, F. Fernández de Trocóniz Robles, T. Klupsch, M. Bettermann, S. Ianc and M. Rickert, lawyers)

Re:

First, an application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Article 6(1)(d) of Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of the SRB of 7 June 2017 concerning the adoption of a resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español SA, in so far as it makes provision for the conversion of Tier 2 capital instruments identified by the International Securities Identification Number (ISIN) XS 0550098569 into new shares in Banco Popular Español, and the provisional valuation carried out by the independent expert and the provisional valuation carried out by the SRB, and secondly, an application based on Article 266 TFEU seeking compensation, following on from the annulment, for the loss allegedly suffered as a result of that conversion.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the applications to for leave to intervene submitted by Banco Santander SA, the Kingdom of Spain and the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the applications to for leave to intervene submitted by Banco Santander SA, the Kingdom of Spain and the European Commission.

| 3. | Ms Carmen Liaño Reig shall bear her own costs and pay those incurred by the Single Resolution Board (SRB), with the exception of those relating to the applications for leave to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Ms Carmen Liaño Reig shall bear her own costs and pay those incurred by the Single Resolution Board (SRB), with the exception of those relating to the applications for leave to intervene.

| 4. | Ms Carmen Liaño Reig, the SRB, Banco Santander, the Kingdom of Spain and the Commission shall bear their own costs relating to the applications for leave to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Ms Carmen Liaño Reig, the SRB, Banco Santander, the Kingdom of Spain and the Commission shall bear their own costs relating to the applications for leave to intervene.

---

(1)  OJ C 357, 23.10.2017.

---
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 99 (Tuesday, May 22, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28145-28146]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-12862]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Natural Resources Conservation Service


Lower Tillamook Bay Watershed Plan and Environmental Assessment, 
Tillamook, Oregon

AGENCY: Natural Resources Conservation Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of a Finding of No Significant Impact.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental 
Policy Act of 1969; the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations 
(40 CFR part 1500); and the Natural Resources Conservation Service 
Regulations (7 CFR part 650); the Natural Resources Conservation 
Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, gives notice that an 
environmental impact statement is not being prepared for the Lower 
Tillamook Bay Watershed Plan and Environmental Assessment, Tillamook, 
Oregon.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob Graham, State Conservationist, 
Natural Resources Conservation Service, 101 SW Main, Suite 1300, 
Portland, Oregon 97204, telephone 503-414-3200.

[[Page 28146]]


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The environmental assessment of this 
federally assisted action indicates that the project will not cause 
significant local, regional, or national impacts on the environment. As 
a result of these findings, Bob Graham, State Conservationist, has 
determined that the preparation and review of an environmental impact 
statement is not needed for this project.
    The project purpose is for watershed protection. The planned works 
of improvement include the development and implementation of 
conservation plans on approximately 60 dairies, 22 heifer replacement 
operations and 34 other livestock operations.
    The Notice of a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) has been 
forwarded to the Environmental Protection Agency and to various 
Federal, State and local agencies and interested parties. A limited 
number of copies of the FONSI are available to fill single copy 
requests at the above address. Basic data developed during the 
environmental assessment are on file and may be reviewed by contacting 
Terry Nelson, NRCS, 503-414-3014.
    No administrative action on implementation of the proposal will be 
taken until 30 days after the date of this publication in the Federal 
Register.

(This activity is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic 
Assistance under No. 10.904, Watershed Protection and Flood 
Prevention, and is subject to the provisions of Executive Order 
12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and 
local officials.)

    Dated: April 27, 2001
Bob Graham,
State Conservationist.
[FR Doc. 01-12862 Filed 5-21-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-16-U
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 98 (Monday, May 21, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 27953]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-12646]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER01-1397-000]


Perryville Energy Partners, L.L.C.; Notice of Issuance of Order

May 15, 2001.
    Perryville Energy Partners, L.L.C. (Perryville) submitted for 
filing a rate schedule under which Perryville will engage in wholesale 
electric power and energy transactions at market-based rates. 
Perryville also requested waiver of various Commission regulations. In 
particular, Perryville requested that the Commission grant blanket 
approval under 18 CFR Part 34 of all future issuances of securities and 
assumptions of liability by Perryville.
    On May 3, 2001, pursuant to delegated authority, the Director, 
Division of Corporate Applications, Office of Markets, Tariffs and 
Rates, granted requests for blanket approval under Part 34, subject to 
the following:
    Within thirty days of the date of the order, any person desiring to 
be heard or to protest the blanket approval of issuances of securities 
or assumptions of liability by Perryville 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).
    Absent a request to be heard in opposition within this period, 
Perryville is authorized to issue securities and assume obligations or 
liabilities as a guarantor, indorser, surety, or otherwise in respect 
of any security of another person; provided that such issuance or 
assumption is for some lawful object within the corporate purposes of 
the applicant, and compatible with the public interest, and is 
reasonably necessary or appropriate for such purposes.
    The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that 
neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by 
continued approval of Perryville's issuances of securities or 
assumptions of liability.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing motions to 
intervene or protests, as set forth above, is June 4, 2001.
    Copies of the full text of the Order are available from the 
Commission's Public Reference Branch, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426. The Order 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. 01-12646 Filed 5-18-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
EXHIBIT 32 
Section 1350 Certifications  STATEMENT FURNISHED PURSUANT TO 
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 The undersigned are the Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of Vision Industries Corp. This Certification is made pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. This Certification accompanies the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Vision Industries Corp. for the three months ended
March 31, 2009. The undersigned certify that such 10-K Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such 10-Q Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Vision Industries Corp. as of
March 31, 2009. This Certification is executed as of
May 20, 2009. By:   /s/MARTIN SCHUERMANN Martin Schuermann
President and Chief Executive Officer 
(Principal Executive Officer)  By:   /s/LAWRENCE WEISDORN Lawrence Weisdorn Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Vision Industries Corp. and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# C_2017129EN.01003201.xml

| 24.4.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 129/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.4.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 129/32

---

Action brought on 6 March 2017 — Kaimbi v Council

(Case T-142/17)

(2017/C 129/48)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Delphin Kaimbi (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: O. Okito, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Regulation (EU) 2016/2230 implementing Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/2231 of 12 December 2016 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP, in so far as it concerns Mr Delphin Kaimbi; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Regulation (EU) 2016/2230 implementing Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/2231 of 12 December 2016 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP, in so far as it concerns Mr Delphin Kaimbi;

| — | order the Council to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant and all interveners. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant and all interveners.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-139/17, Kibelisa v Council.

Kibelisa

Council

---