alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2010246EN.01000602.xml

| 11.9.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 246/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.9.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 246/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 29 July 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social Único de Algeciras (Spain)) — Federación de Servicios Públicos de la UGT (UGT-FSP) v Ayuntamiento de La Línea de la Concepción, María del Rosario Vecino Uribe, Ministerio Fiscal

(Case C-151/09) (1)

1

(Transfers of undertakings - Directive 2001/23/EC - Safeguarding of employees’ rights - Employee representatives - Autonomy of the entity transferred)

2010/C 246/10

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Social Único de Algeciras

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Federación de Servicios Públicos de la UGT (UGT-FSP)

Applicant:

Defendants: Ayuntamiento de La Línea de la Concepción, María del Rosario Vecino Uribe, Ministerio Fiscal

Defendants:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Juzgado de lo Social Único de Algeciras — Interpretation of Article 6(1) of Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses — Obligation to preserve the status and the function of the employee representatives in an undertaking or business, where the undertaking or business preserves its autonomy following the transfer — Concept of autonomy

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

A transferred economic entity preserves its autonomy, within the meaning of Article 6(1) of Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses, provided that the powers granted to those in charge of that entity, within the organisational structures of the transferor, namely the power to organise, relatively freely and independently, the work within that entity in the pursuit of its specific economic activity and, more particularly, the powers to give orders and instructions, to allocate tasks to employees of the entity concerned and to determine the use of assets available to the entity, all without direct intervention from other organisational structures of the employer, remain, within the organisational structures of the transferee, essentially unchanged. The mere change of those ultimately in charge cannot in itself be detrimental to the autonomy of the entity transferred, except where those who have become ultimately in charge have available to them powers which enable them to organise directly the activities of the employees of that entity and therefore to substitute their decision making within that entity for that of those immediately in charge of the employees.

---

(1)  OJ C 167, 18.7.2009.

1

---
ex_115428.htm


Exhibit 10.1


 


 


 


May 23, 2018


 


 


Mr. Robert G. Brown


SPAR Business Services, Inc.


7711 N. Military Trail


Suite 1000


Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410


 


Attention: Robert G. Brown, President


 


Re: Notice of Cessation of Use of SBS Services Anticipated on or before August 15, 2018.


 


Dear Bob,


 


As per our discussion on May 3, 2018, SPAR Marketing Force, Inc. ("SMF"), is hereby giving SPAR Business Services (“SBS”) notice of SMF's decision to cease using SBS's services, anticipated on or before August 15, 2018.


 


SMF will work together with SBS (in particular, you and your team) throughout this transition while SBS continues to provide its services, and SMF continues to use those services, as we each strive to accomplish a smooth and seamless transition.


 


Please let me know of any questions.


 


Sincerely,


 


 


 


Kori Belzer


Chief Operating Officer


SPAR Marketing Force, Inc.


 


 


	
			cc:

				
			 Christiaan M. Olivier

			
	 	
			 James R. Segreto


			 Arthur B. Drogue


			 Lawrence David Swift, Esq.
Exhibit 32.1   Certification of CEO
      and CFOPursuant to 18 U.S.C.
      Section 1350,As Adopted Pursuant
      toSection 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
   In connection with the
Annual Report on Form 10-K ofGolden Spirit Enterprises, Ltd.for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Christopher Scheive, as the
equivalent of the chief executive officer of the Company,  hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his
knowledge:  (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 Partnership.  /s/Christopher ScheiveName: Christopher ScheiveDate: April 15,
2009  This
certification is furnished with this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Partnership for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended.
Exhibit 21
                                                               ----------

        Direct and Indirect Subsidiaries of Commonwealth Industries, Inc.


              Name                              Jurisdiction of Incorporation
              ----                              -----------------------------

     Commonwealth Financing Corp. (1)                           Delaware

     CA Lewisport, LLC (2)                                      Delaware

     Commonwealth Aluminum Sales Corporation (3)                Delaware

     Commonwealth Aluminum Lewisport, LLC (7)                   Delaware

     Commonwealth Aluminum Metals, LLC (6)                      Delaware

     CI Holdings, LLC (2)                                       Delaware

     Commonwealth Aluminum Scottsboro, Inc. (1)                 Delaware

     Alflex Corporation (4)                                     Delaware

     Commonwealth Aluminum Concast, Inc. (4)                    Ohio

     Commonwealth Aluminum Tube Enterprises, LLC (5)            Delaware

     Commonwealth Aluminum, LLC (8)                             Delaware
       -------------------------------------------------------------------
         (1)  Subsidiary of Commonwealth Industries, Inc.

         (2)  Limited Liability Company 100% owned by Commonwealth Industries,
              Inc.

         (3)  Subsidiary of CA Lewisport, LLC.

         (4)  Subsidiary of CI Holdings, LLC.

         (5)  Limited Liability Company 100% owned by Commonwealth Aluminum
              Concast, Inc.

         (6)  Limited Liability Company 100% owned by Commonwealth Aluminum
              Lewisport, LLC.

         (7)  Limited Liability Company 73% owned by CA Lewisport, LLC and 27%
              owned by Commonwealth Aluminum, LLC.

         (8)  Limited Liability Company 100% owned by Commonwealth Aluminum
              Concast, Inc.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 117 (Monday, June 18, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32872-32873]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-15322]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board


Indexing the Annual Operating Revenues of Railroads

    This Notice sets forth the annual inflation adjusting index numbers 
which are used to adjust gross annual operating revenues of railroads 
for classification purposes. This indexing methodology will insure that 
regulated carriers are classified based on real business expansion and 
not from the effects of inflation. Classification is important because 
it determines the extent of reporting for each carrier.
    The railroad's inflation factors are based on the annual average 
Railroad's Freight Price Index. This index is

[[Page 32873]]

developed by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). This index will be 
used to deflate revenues for comparison with established revenue 
thresholds.
    The base year for railroads is 1991. The inflation index factors 
are presented as follows:

                         Railroad Freight Index
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Year                    Index              Deflator percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             1991                   409.50               \1\ 100.00
             1992                   411.80                    99.45
             1993                   415.50                    98.55
             1994                   418.80                    97.70
             1995                   418.17                    97.85
             1996                   417.46                    98.02
             1997                   419.67                    97.50
             1998                   424.54                    96.38
             1999                   423.01                    96.72
             2000                   428.64                   95.45
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Ex Parte No. 492, Montana Rail Link, Inc., and Wisconsin Central
  Ltd., Joint Petition For Rulemaking With Respect To 49 CFR 1201, 8
  I.C.C. 2d 625 (1992), raised the revenue classification level for
  Class I railroads from $50 million to $250 million (1991 dollars),
  effective for the reporting year beginning January 1, 1992. The Class
  II threshold was also revised to reflect a rebasing from $10 million
  (1978 dollars) to $20 million (1991 dollars).


EFFECTIVE DATE: January 1, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Decker (202) 565-1531. (TDD for 
the hearing impaired: 1-800-877-8339)

    By the Board.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-15322 Filed 6-15-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-00-P
<PAGE 11>

                                                                EXHIBIT 11

AMERICAN GAMING & ENTERTAINMENT, LTD.
COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS (LOSS) PER SHARE


                                         Three Months Ended
                                            March 31,
                                         2000          1999
                                         ____          ____

Weighted average number
of shares for computation          12,533,948     12,532,102
                                   ==========     ==========

Net loss                            $(136,000)   $(1,863,000)

Dividends and accretion
on preferred stock                    316,000        467,000
                                      _______        _______

Net loss for common
Stockholders                        $(452,000)   $(2,330,000)
                                    =========    ===========

Net loss for common
stockholders per common
share                                  $(0.04)        $(0.19)
                                       ======         ======
James R. YOUNG, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-5757.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 28, 2016.

Petition for rehearing denied.
# C_2009220EN.01002302.xml

| 12.9.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 220/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.9.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 220/23

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 10 July 2009 — Bianca Purrucker v Guillermo Vallés Pérez

(Case C-256/09)

2009/C 220/46

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Bianca Purrucker

Applicant:

Defendant: Guillermo Vallés Pérez

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Do the provisions of Article 21 et seq. of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 (1) (the Brussels IIa Regulation) concerning the recognition and enforcement of decisions of other Member States, in accordance with Article 2(4) of that regulation, also apply to enforceable provisional measures, within the meaning of Article 20 of that regulation, concerning the right to child custody?

1

---

(1)  OJ 2003 L 338, p. 1.

1

---
II-00282

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Tim Hayes <huixli@gmail. corn>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 2:50 PM

dfadefinitions <dfadefinitions@CFTC.gov>

Re: No loopholes in Dodd-Frank

1) Securities and Exchange Commission/Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Commercial Risk (CFTC PIN

3235-AK65, SEC File Number $7-12-10)

Dear Commissioners Shapiro and Gensler: Don’t let the American Bankers Association (ABA) redefine important terms like

"commercial risk" to keep banks that engage in risky derivatives trading from complying with transparency and business

conduct requirements. Commercial risk should not be expanded to include financial risk. Accepting the ABA argument

would open the door for exemptions for risky hedge funds and insurance companies.

2) Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Position Limits (PIN 3038-AD 17 )

Dear Commissioner Gensler: The CFTC needs to set strong position limits to crack down on the energy and food commodity

speculation that serves no productive purpose. I urge the Commission to define limits that will address not only manipulation,

but also excessive speculation, which will require a stricter approach.

3) U.S. Department of the Treasury, Re: FX Swaps (75 FR 66426 Document Number 2010-27274)

Dear Secretary Geithner: Just say "no" to foreign exchange traders who want to exempt foreign currency derivatives from the

clearing and transparency requirements of the

Dodd-Frank Act. $4 trillion dollars a day is traded in these highly-leveraged swaps and this number may increase to over $10

trillion in a decade. As the head of the Financial

Stability Oversight Board your job is to decrease risk in the system, not encourage off-book trading and opaque markets.

Tim Hayes

1504 Dudley P1

Santa Rosa, CA 95401
# C_2009220EN.01004303.xml

| 12.9.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 220/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.9.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 220/43

---

Action brought on 24 July 2009 — Barbin v Parliament

(Case F-68/09)

2009/C 220/91

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Florence Barbin (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the appointing authority’s decision of 10 November 2008 not to promote the applicant to grade AD 12 for the 2006 promotion exercise.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | annul the European Parliament’s decision not to promote the applicant to grade AD 12 for the 2006 promotion exercise; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the European Parliament’s decision not to promote the applicant to grade AD 12 for the 2006 promotion exercise;

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

—

order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

---
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

Before the 

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION 

ATS CAPITAL MANAGEMENT CORP. 

v. 

JOHN WILLIAM SENDLOSKY and 

TRADESTATION SECURITIES, INC. 

CFTC Docket No. 10-R015 

ORDER OF SUMMARY 

AFFIRMANCE 

Upon review of the record and the parties' appellate submissions, we have determined 

that the findings and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge are supported by the weight 

of the evidence; we therefore adopt them. We also find that none of the arguments on appeal 

present important questions of law or policy that merit extended discussion. Accordingly, we 

summarily affirm the decision of the Administrative Law Judge without opinion. 1 

IT IS SO ORDERED.2 

By the Commission (Chairman GENSLER and Commissioners SOMMERS, CHILTON, 

O'MALIA and WETJEN.) 

Dated: March 5, 2013 

Melis a D. Jurgens 

Secretary of the Commissio 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

1 Pursuant to Commission Regulation 12.406(b ), 17 C.F.R. § 12.406(b ), neither the initial decision nor the 

Commission's order of summary affimance shall serve as a Commission precedent in other proceedings. 2 Under Sections 6(c) and l4(e) ofthe Commodity Exchange Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 9 and 18(e)(2012), a party may 

appeal a reparation order of the Commission to the United States Court of Appeals for only the circuit in which a 

hearing was held; if no hearing was held, the appeal may be filed in any circuit in which the appellee is located. The 

Commission has ruled that telephonic hearings are "held" in Washington, D.C., although patties may speak from 

several different locations. Dubois v. Alaron, [2000-2002 Transfer Binder] Comm. Fut. L. Rep. (CCH) ~ 28,406 at 

51,026 n.l6 (CFTC Oct. 26, 2000). The statute also states that such an appeal must be filed within 15 days after 

notice of the order and that any appeal is not effective unless, within 30 days of the date of the Commission order, 

the appealing party files with the court a bond equal to double the amount of any reparation award.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                  MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                             20,295
<SECURITIES>                       28,042
<RECEIVABLES>                      31,368
<ALLOWANCES>                       (5,716)
<INVENTORY>                           596
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                   95,476
<PP&E>                             58,742
<DEPRECIATION>                    (47,037)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    151,643
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              67,248
<BONDS>                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                             0
<COMMON>                          107,232
<OTHER-SE>                        (31,210)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      151,643
<SALES>                            81,250
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                   89,195
<CGS>                              11,659
<TOTAL-COSTS>                      22,089
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                   85,627
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                  1,192
<INCOME-PRETAX>                   (15,584)
<INCOME-TAX>                        1,350
<INCOME-CONTINUING>               (16,934)
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                      (16,934)
<EPS-BASIC>                       (0.48)
<EPS-DILUTED>                       (0.48)


</TABLE>
II-01011

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Peg Luther <pegluther@gmail.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 9:10 AM

dfadefinitions <dfadefinitions@CFTC.gov>

Re: No loopholes in Dodd-Frank

1) Securities and Exchange Commission/Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Commercial Risk (CFTC RIN

3235-AK65, SEC File Number $7-12-10)

Dear Commissioners Shapiro and Gensler: Don’t let the American Bankers Association (ABA) redefine important terms like

"commercial risk" to keep banks that engage in risky derivatives trading from complying with transparency and business

conduct requirements. Commercial risk should not be expanded to include financial risk. Accepting the ABA argument

would open the door for exemptions for risky hedge funds and insurance companies.

2) Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Position Limits (RIN 3038-AD 17 )

Dear Commissioner Gensler: The CFTC needs to set strong position limits to crack down on the energy and food commodity

speculation that serves no productive purpose. I urge the Commission to define limits that will address not only manipulation,

but also excessive speculation, which will require a stricter approach.

3) U.S. Department of the Treasury, Re: FX Swaps (75 FR 66426 Document Number 2010-27274)

Dear Secretary Geithner: Just say "no" to foreign exchange traders who want to exempt foreign currency derivatives from the

clearing and transparency requirements of the

Dodd-Frank Act. $4 trillion dollars a day is traded in these highly-leveraged swaps and this number may increase to over $10

trillion in a decade. As the head of the Financial

Stability Oversight Board your job is to decrease risk in the system, not encourage off-book trading and opaque markets.

Peg Luther

2601 Lazy Hollow Dr.

Houston, TX 77063
Tiffany L. AGUAYO, et al., petitioners, v. Sally JEWELL, Secretary of Interior, et al.

No. 16-660.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 23, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Thomas FLORENCE, petitioner, v. Lorie DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

No. 16-6673.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Randy HOLKESVIG, petitioner, v. SUPRREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA.

No. 16-633.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of North Dakota denied.
Opinion filed October 3, 2019

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals ____________

No. 11-19-00277-CR

____________

HAROLD WAYNE MITCHELL, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 238th District Court

Midland County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CR43869

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant, Harold Wayne Mitchell, filed a pro se notice of appeal related to 

his request for a judgment nunc pro tunc. Appellant sought to have the trial court 

enter a judgment nunc pro tunc with respect to the attorney’s fees associated with 

this cause. We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction, but we note that the trial 

court has now entered an order in which it granted Appellant’s motion for judgment 
2

nunc pro tunc and that the trial court has amended the bill of costs to delete the 

$1,100.00 in attorney’s fees and $22.50 of the $25.00 time payment fee.

When the appeal was filed in this court, we notified Appellant by letter that 

the order from which he attempted to appeal did not appear to be a final, appealable 

order. We requested that Appellant respond and show grounds to continue, and we

informed him that this appeal may be dismissed. Appellant filed a response but has 

not shown grounds upon which this appeal may continue. 

An intermediate appellate court has no jurisdiction over an appeal from an 

order denying a request for judgment nunc pro tunc because such an order is not an 

appealable order. Gonzalez v. State, No. 11-17-00056-CR, 2017 WL 1275540, at *1 

(Tex. App.—Eastland Mar. 31, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for 

publication); Sims v. State, No. 05-14-01438-CR, 2014 WL 6453607, at *1 (Tex. 

App.—Dallas Nov. 18, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication); 

Sanchez v. State, 112 S.W.3d 311, 312 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2003, no pet.); 

Everett v. State, 82 S.W.3d 735 (Tex. App.—Waco 2002, pet. dism’d). Thus, we 

have no jurisdiction to entertain this appeal. 

We dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. 

PER CURIAM

October 3, 2019

Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., 

Stretcher, J., and Wright, S.C.J.1

Willson, J., not participating. 

 1

Jim R. Wright, Senior Chief Justice (Retired), Court of Appeals, 11th District of Texas at Eastland, 

sitting by assignment.