alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2017347EN.01003901.xml

| 16.10.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.10.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/39

---

Action brought on 4 August 2017 — Fundación Pedro Barrié de la Maza, Conde de Fenosa v Commission and SRB

(Case T-507/17)

(2017/C 347/50)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Fundación Pedro Barrié de la Maza, Conde de Fenosa (La Coruña, Spain) (represented by: B. Gutiérrez de la Roza Pérez, P. Rubio Escobar, R. Ruiz de la Torre Esporrín y B. Fernández García, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendants: European Commission and Single Resolution Board

Defendants:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should annul:

| — | Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of the Single Resolution Board taken at its executive session of 7 June 2017 adopting the resolution scheme regarding the institution Banco Popular Español S.A.; |
| --- | --- |

—

Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of the Single Resolution Board taken at its executive session of 7 June 2017 adopting the resolution scheme regarding the institution Banco Popular Español S.A.;

| — | Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1246 of 7 June 2017 endorsing the resolution scheme for Banco Popular Español. |
| --- | --- |

—

Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1246 of 7 June 2017 endorsing the resolution scheme for Banco Popular Español.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in Cases T-478/17, Mutualidad de la Abogacía and Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos v Single Resolution Board, T-481/17, Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán el Bueno and SFL v Single Resolution Board, T-482/17, Comercial Vascongada Recalde v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-483/17, García Suárez and Others v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-484/17, Fidesban and Others v Single Resolution Board, T-497/17, Sáchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015 v Commission and Single Resolution Board, and T-498/17, Pablo Álvarez de Linera Granda v Commission and Single Resolution Board.

Mutualidad de la Abogacía and Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos

Single Resolution Board

Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán el Bueno and SFL

Single Resolution Board

Comercial Vascongada Recalde

Commission and Single Resolution Board

García Suárez and Others

Commission and Single Resolution Board

Fidesban and Others

Single Resolution Board

Sáchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015

Commission and Single Resolution Board

Pablo Álvarez de Linera Granda

Commission and Single Resolution Board

---
Exhibit 99.1

STATEMENT PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,  AS ENACTED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002 (the "Annual Report") of
Mission Energy Holding Company (the "Company"), and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as enacted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned certifies,
based on his or her knowledge, that:



|Date: June 27, 2003 |  | By: |  | /s/THEODORE F. CRAVER, JR.Theodore F. Craver, Jr. Chief Executive
Officer
Mission Energy Holding Company
|------------------- |  | --- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: June 27, 2003 |  | By: |  | /s/KEVIN M. SMITHKevin M. Smith Chief Financial Officer
Mission Energy Holding Company                  

This
statement accompanies the Annual Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed
filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

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

---

QuickLinks
Exhibit 23.1



CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (File No. 333-127656), relating to the 2005 Stock Option
Plan of Houston American Energy Corp., and on Form S-3 (File No. 333-134756) of
our report dated March 26, 2007 relating to the financial statements of Houston
American Energy Corp. for the year ended December 31, 2006 that appear in the
Annual Report on Form 10-K of Houston American Energy for the year ended
December 31, 2007.

/s/ Thomas Leger & Co., L.L.P.

Thomas Leger & Co., L.L.P.

HOUSTON, TEXAS
JUNE 19, 2008
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (File
No. 333-54164), Form S-3 (File No. 333-127034) and Form S-3 (File No. 333-114231) of
Vascular Solutions, Inc. of our reports dated January 20, 2006, relating to the
consolidated financial statements, the financial statement schedule, managements
assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and the
effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears on pages 39, 41
and 42 of this annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005.

| | /s/   VIRCHOW, KRAUSE & COMPANY, LLP
| | ------------------------------------

Minneapolis, MinnesotaJanuary
30, 2006

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-7661

LARRY DOTSON,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 versus

LARRY W. JARVIS; JERRY KILGORE; SUPREME COURT

OF VIRGINIA; STEPHEN R. MCCULLOUGH; VIRGINIA

COURT OF APPEALS; SHEILA TOLLIVER, Buchanan

County Commonwealth's Attorney; UNITED STATES

GOVERNMENT; EDWARD A. MATNEY; THOMAS W.

GOODMAN, JR.,

 Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior

District Judge. (CA-02-6-7)

Submitted: July 21, 2004 Decided: August 9, 2004

Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Frederick Wayne Adkins, Hugh Patrick Cline, Jr., CLINE, ADKINS &

CLINE, Norton, Virginia, for Appellant. Stephen R. McCullough,

Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
- 2 -

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 3 -

PER CURIAM:

Larry Dotson seeks to appeal the district court’s orders

denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000),

and denying his motion to alter or amend the judgment. An appeal

may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding

unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of

appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the

denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000).

A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable

jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and

that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are

also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322,

336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v.

Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently

reviewed the record and conclude that Dotson has not made the

requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny Dotson’s motion to

transfer an additional supplement to the record because the

supplement he seeks, trial exhibit eleven, is part of the existing

record. We also deny Dotson’s motion for a pre-hearing conference

and his motion to file a pro se supplemental brief. We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
- 4 -

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
#### Kimberly Hurrell-Harring et al., on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Appellants, v State of New York et al., Respondents.

Submitted February 16, 2010;

decided February 18, 2010

Motion by Legal Aid Society for leave to file a brief amicus curiae on the appeal herein granted and the proposed brief is accepted as filed.
a6427692ex10_21.htm


Exhibit 10.21

















[COPYTELE, INC. LETTERHEAD]


 







June 7, 2010












Videocon Industries Limited


2nd Floor, Fort House, D.N. Road


Fort, Mumbai 400 001 (INDIA)



	Attention: 	Venugopal N. Dhoot, Director
	 	Naveen Mandhana, Sr. Vice President





 


Dear Sirs:







With respect to the installments of the Technology Transfer Fee scheduled to be paid by February 16, 2009 and November 16, 2009, under the Amended and Restated Technology License Agreement between Videocon Industries Limited (“Videocon”) and CopyTele, Inc. (“CopyTele”), dated May 16, 2008 (the “License Agreement”), CopyTele hereby waives the February 16, 2009 and November 16, 2009 due dates for such installment payments on the condition (i) that Videocon make an additional payment of such installments of $300,000 no later than July 1, 2010, and (ii) that Videocon and CopyTele agree upon a mutually acceptable payment schedule for the balance of such installments prior to August 15, 2010.  Except as specifically set forth herein, all terms and conditions of the License Agreement shall remain unchanged and shall continue to be valid and binding upon the parties thereto.








	  	
Sincerely,

	 
	  	  	  	 
	  	
COPYTELE, INC.

	 
	  	  	  	 
	  	  	  	 
	  	
By:

	
/s/ Denis A. Krusos

	 
	  	  	
Denis A. Krusos

	 
	  	  	
Chairman and C.E.O.
**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO 18 USC, SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906**


**OF
      THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**








In
      connection with the Annual Report of M-GAB Development Corporation (the
“Company”) on Second Amended Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2003,
      as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof
      (the “Report”), I, Carl M. Berg, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to
      18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act
      of 2002, that:





(1)  The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2)  Information
      contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
      condition and results of operations of the Company.








Dated:
                July 22, 2005
            /s/
                Carl M. BergBy:
                Carl M. BergIts:
                President








A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      M-GAB Development Corporation and will be retained by M-GAB Development
      Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
      staff
      upon request.
Exhibit 10.1



AMENDMENT NUMBER 2 TO MASTER TERM LOAN AGREEMENT

DATED OCTOBER 31, 2007 and AMENDED DECEMBER 4, 2007



This Amendment is entered into this 28th  day of January 2008, by and between Randolph  M. Pentel and CapSource Financial, Inc., a Colorado corporation, (collectively Parties).



WHEREAS, the Parties entered into a loan agreement dated October 31, 2007 in the original principal amount of Seven Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($750,000) (Master Term Loan Agreement);



WHEREAS, the Parties entered into an amendment of the Master Term Loan Agreement on December 4, 2007 whereby the principal amount was increased to One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) (Amendment No. 1);



WHEREAS, the Parties desire to further modify the terms of the Master Term Loan Agreement;



NOW THEREFOREfor good and valuable consideration, the sufficiency of which is acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows:



1.That portion of Article 1 of the Master Term Loan Agreement, as amended by Amendment No. 1  setting forth the term Loan Amount shall be and is hereby amended to read One Million Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand Dollars ($1,250,000).



2.            All other terms and conditions of the Master Term Loan Agreement, as amended, remain unchanged and are hereby ratified.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this amendment as of the date first set forth above.





/s/ Randolph M. PentelRandolph M. PentelCapSource Financial, Inc./s/ Steven E. ReichertBy Steven E. ReichertIts Vice President and General Counsel




---
# C_2019230EN.01003002.xml

| 8.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 May 2019 — Marinvest and Porting v Commission

(Case T-728/17) (1)

(State aid - Pleasure port infrastructure - Concession for the management of a port and the provision of infrastructures and services without economic consideration - Decision finding that there is no State aid - Effect on trade between Member States)

(2019/C 230/37)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicants: Marinvest d.o.o. (Izola, Slovenia) and Porting d.o.o. (Izola) (represented by: G. Cecovini Amigoni and L. Daniele, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Stancanelli, S. Noë and D. Recchia, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: initially T. Henze and R. Kanitz, and subsequently R. Kanitz, acting as Agents), Javno podjetje komunala Izola d.o.o. (Izola, Slovenia) (represented by: A. Mužina, lawyer)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission decision C(2017) 5049 final of 20 July 2017 on State aid SA.45220 (2016/FC) — Slovenia — Alleged aid in favour of Komunala Izola d.o.o.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Marinvest d.o.o. and Porting d.o.o. to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Marinvest d.o.o. and Porting d.o.o. to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

| 3. | Orders the Federal Republic of Germany and Javno podjetje komunala Izola d.o.o. to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Federal Republic of Germany and Javno podjetje komunala Izola d.o.o. to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 22, 22.1.2018.

---
#### Walter J. THOMAS, Appellant v. Natwar M. GANDHI, Chief Financial Officer, Appellee.

No. 09-7111.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

May 24, 2010.

Rehearing En Banc Denied July 21, 2010.

*26Barbara B. Hutchinson, Law Office of Barbara B. Hutchinson, New Carrollton, MD, for Appellant.

Donna M. Murasky, Esquire, Deputy Solicitor, Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia, Office of the Solicitor General, Mary E. Pivec, Keller and Heckman LLP, Washington, DC, for Appellee.

Before: GINSBURG, HENDERSON and GARLAND, Circuit Judges.

*JUDGMENT*

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered upon the briefs and the appendices filed by the parties. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s orders granting appellee’s motions for summary judgment be affirmed.

First, the district court correctly granted summary judgment on Thomas’s claims of discriminatory non-selection for the positions of Special Assistant to the Director and Lead Logistics Management Specialist because Thomas’s conceded failure to apply for either position precluded his ability to establish a prima facie case of discrimination. 2007 Mem. Op. at 14; *accord Cones v. Shalala,*199 F.3d 512, 516 (D.C.Cir.2000). Second, the court correct*27ly granted summary judgment on Thomas’s claim of discriminatory non-selection for the position of Lead Support Specialist (LSS) because he failed to rebut the defendant’s non-discriminatory explanation for non-selection, *viz.,*that the selected candidate was better qualified than Thomas. 2007 Mem. Op. at 15 (citing *Holcomb v. Powell,*433 F.3d 889, 897 (D.C.Cir.2006)).

Finally, the district court correctly granted summary judgment on Thomas’s age discrimination claim regarding his non-selection for the LSS position. We need not consider whether the defendant was estopped from moving for summary judgment on this claim because Thomas’s argument to that effect was not raised in his opening brief. *See Am. Wildlands v. Kempthorne,*530 F.3d 991, 1001 (D.C.Cir.2008). As the district court concluded, the additional evidence Thomas submitted in support of this claim is insufficient to raise a disputed issue of fact. 2009 Mem. Op. at 7. Ms. Smoak’s comment that Thomas had “retired in place,” when read in context, clearly refers to Thomas’s work ethic, not to his age. 2009 Mem. Op. at 9. With respect to Thomas’s allegation that Mr. Lister told him about “rumors” that other people had stated Thomas was not selected because he had reached “retirement age,” the undisputed circumstances make clear no reasonable jury could credit this evidence.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Lever Sander QUINTANILLA-SALGADO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 12-51208

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Oct. 15, 2013.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Reginald Van Wade, Esq., Del Rio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

*494PER CURIAM: *

Lever Sander Quintanilla-Salgado appeals from his within-guidelines sentence of 46 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry into the United States after deportation. He challenges the substantive reasonableness of his sentence, arguing that his sentence is unreasonable because it is greater than necessary to achieve the sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 8553(a) and because it does not reflect his personal history and circumstances. He also argues that his sentence is unreasonable because the illegal reentry Guideline lacks an empirical basis and double counts criminal history, and illegal reentry essentially is a mere trespass offense. He concedes that his challenge to the lack of an empirical basis for the illegal reentry Guideline is foreclosed by *United States v. Mondragon-Santiago,*564 F.3d 357, 366-67 (5th Cir.2009).

We review sentences for substantive reasonableness, in light of the § 3553(a) factors, under an abuse of discretion standard. *Gall v. United States,*552 U.S. 38, 49-51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). A within-guidelines sentence is entitled to a presumption of reasonableness. *See Rita v. United States,*551 U.S. 338, 347, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007). We have rejected the argument that illegal reentry is merely a trespass offense that is treated too harshly under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2. *See United States v. Aguirre-Villa,*460 F.3d 681, 683 (5th Cir.2006). Quintanilla-Salgado’s disagreement with the district court’s weighing of the § 3553(a) factors is insufficient to rebut the presumption of reasonableness that attaches to a within-guidelines sentence. *See United States v. Cooks,*589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir.2009). “[T]he sentencing judge is in a superior position to find facts and judge their import under § 3553(a) with respect to a particular defendant.” *United States v. Campos-Maldonado,*531 F.3d 337, 339 (5th Cir.2008). The fact that we “might reasonably have concluded that a different sentence was appropriate is insufficient to justify reversal of the district court.” *Gall,*552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586.

Quintanilla-Salgado has not demonstrated that the district court abused its discretion by sentencing him to a within-guidelines sentences of 46 months. *See id.*at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
AEGIS SEF | 2829 Technology Forest Boulevard, Suite 260 | The Woodlands, Texas 77381

February 2, 2023

Submitted via Portal

Mr. Christopher J. Kirkpatrick

Office of the Secretariat

U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Three Lafayette Centre

1155 21st Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20581

Re: Confidential Treatment Request – Exhibit B - AEGIS SEF Self Certification

Dear Sir:

AEGIS SEF, LLC (“AEGIS SEF”) hereby requests that the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading

Commission (the “Commission”) accord confidential treatment to Exhibit B (“Exhibit”), which 

were submitted to the Commission as 40.2 Listing products for trading by certification on this 

date. This request pertains to all material in the Exhibit. The Exhibit bears the designation 

“Confidential Treatment Requested by AEGIS SEF, LLC.”

This request for confidential treatment is made pursuant to Commission Regulations 40.8, as 

Exhibit contains information that would reveal the trade secrets or confidential commercial or 

financial information of AEGIS SEF and its affiliates. 

Please contact the undersigned at 832-413-5973 or afurman@aegis-hedging.com with any 

questions regarding this matter.

Andrew Furman

Chief Compliance Officer

AEGIS SEF, LLC

2829 Technology Forest Blvd

Suite 260

The Woodlands, TX 77381