alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2011204EN.01000701.xml

| 9.7.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 204/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.7.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 204/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 May 2011 — European Commission v Republic of Malta

(Case C-376/09) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 - Article 4(4)(v) and Article 16 - Requirement to decommission fire protection systems and fire extinguishers containing halons for non critical uses on board ships - Exceptions - Critical uses of halons 1301 and 2402)

2011/C 204/12

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Alcover San Pedro and E. Depasquale, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Republic of Malta (represented by: S. Camilleri and A. Buhagiar, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 4(4)(v) and Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on substances that deplete the ozone layer (OJ 2000 L 244, p. 1) — Limitation on the placing on the market and use of controlled substances — Halons — Requirement to decommission fire protection systems and fire extinguishers containing halons — Fire protection systems and extinguishers on ships

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 267, 7.11.2009.

1

---
----

Second amendment to the EESC Rules of Procedure, approved at the plenary session on 31 March 2004             (1)

Articles 3, 8, 10, 10a, 13, 16, 19, 24, 50, 51, 52 and 72 of the Rules of Procedure are amended as follows:

----

(1)  The first amendment was approved at the plenary session of 27 February 2003 and published in OJ L 258 of 10 October 2003.

----

Entry into force

These amendments shall enter into force on 30 April 2004, except for Articles 10(1), 10(2), 10a, 13, 16(1) and 24(3), which shall enter into force on 24 October 2004.

----

Transitional provision

For the remainder of the 2002-2004 term of office, the assembly will elect bureau members from the new Member States as and when they take up their posts as Committee members.

----
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-40926 Summary Calendar

__________________ ROGER M. LANCE, Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus PORT OF CORPUS CHRISTI AUTHORITY, Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. C-95-CV-229
- - - - - - - - - - September 20, 1996 Before JONES, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Roger M. Lance argues that the district court erred in granting the defendant's summary judgment motion and dismissing his claims for defamation, retaliatory discharge, and a violation of the Family Medical Leave Act. We have reviewed the record, the opinion of the district court, and the briefs, and find, substantially for the reasons relied upon by the district court, that the district court didNo. 95-40926 -2- not err in granting summary judgment and dismissing Lance's claim for retaliatory discharge and his claim that the defendant violated the FMLA. See Lance v. Port of Corpus Christ , No. C-95- CV-229 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 18, 1995). Our review of the record reveals that Lance's defamation claim is barred by governmental immunity, and, thus, the district court did not err in granting summary judgment and dismissing the defamation claim. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. §§ 101.021 (West 1986). AFFIRMED.
# C_2011080EN.01000702.xml

| 12.3.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 80/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.3.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 80/7

---

Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 September 2010 — Dominio de la Vega, SL v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Ambrosio Velasco SA

(Case C-459/09 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 8(1)(b) - Application for Community figurative mark DOMINIO DE LA VEGA - Earlier Community figurative mark PALACIO DE LA VEGA - Existence of a likelihood of confusion in part of the territory of the European Union - Assessment of the similarity between the marks - Dominant element)

2011/C 80/12

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Dominio de la Vega, SL (represented by: E. Caballero Oliver and A. Sanz-Bermell y Martínez, abogados)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, Agent), Ambrosio Velasco SA (represented by: E. Armijo Chávarri, abogado)

Other parties to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 16 September 2009 in Case T-458/07 Dominio de la Vega v OHIM dismissing the action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 October 2007 (Case R 1431/2006-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Ambrosio Velasco, SA and Dominio de la Vega, SL

Dominio de la Vega

OHIM

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Dominio de la Vega SL shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dominio de la Vega SL shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 24, 30.1.2010.

1

---
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1
                      DIGITAL GENERATIONS SYSTEMS, INC.
                    STATEMENTS OF COMPUTATION OF WEIGHTED
                            AVERAGE COMMON SHARES
                  (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT FOR PER SHARE AMOUNTS)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                YEAR ENDED       YEAR ENDED    YEAR ENDED
                                               DECEMBER 31,     DECEMBER 31,   DECEMBER 31,
                                                   1997            1996          1995
                                                 --------        --------       -------
<S>                                              <C>             <C>            <C>
Net loss                                         $(14,775)       $ (9,127)      $(8,780)
                                                 ========        ========       =======
Weighted average common shares outstanding         11,893          10,488           898
                                                 ========        ========       =======

Basic and diluted net loss per, share (1)        $  (2.52)       $  (0.87)      $ (9.78)
                                                 ========        ========       =======
</TABLE>

(1)     For the year ended December 31, 1997, the net loss per share was
        computed as net loss of $14,775,000 plus $15,161,000 relating to the
        preferred stock deemed dividend (See Note 8 to the Consolidated
        Financial Statements) divided by the weighted average common shares
        outstanding.
II-O0710

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Becky Collins <becollins@cox.net>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 12:15 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.

*My daughter and I have, and will soon, cut off our association with Chase bank due to their role in bringing down the world

economy.

I noticed our branch has recently installed bulletproof glass in front of the tellers! I actually went up and touched it, as I have

never seen bulletproof glass before that close up ..... and I am dealing in cash as much as possible from now on.

Sincerely,

Becky Collins

14249 Vistal Hills Drive

Lakeside, CA 92040
II-00528

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Gene Corl <geneacorl@aol.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 3:39 PM

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.

Gene Corl

210 washington st

Wakefield, RI 2879
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-QSB
FOR THE QUARTER ENDED MARCH 31, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1996
<CASH>                                          29,709
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   34,830
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               134,969
<PP&E>                                          70,430
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,459
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,665,295
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,235,828
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     2,434,325
<OTHER-SE>                                     231,207
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,665,295
<SALES>                                         65,295
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                65,295
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   94,310
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                56,822
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (85,260)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (85,260)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (85,260)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.09)
        

</TABLE>
Patrick D. BAKER, petitioner, v. URS FEDERAL SERVICES.

No. 16-6985.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 23, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          43,623
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   74,538
<ALLOWANCES>                                     8,164
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               140,711
<PP&E>                                          92,581
<DEPRECIATION>                                  46,542
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 497,821
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          131,304
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         40
<COMMON>                                           187
<OTHER-SE>                                     138,188
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   497,821
<SALES>                                        469,542
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               469,542
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  448,554
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              12,007
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 10,940
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,786
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              6,154
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    951
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,203
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.15
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.15
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2

                            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 Quarterly Report of Telynx, Inc. a Delaware corporation
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending January 31, 2004, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
Beth Ochoa, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies to the best of his
knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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.

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


/s/ Beth N. Ochoa
-----------------
Beth Ochoa
Chief Financial Officer
August 29, 2006
Oscar ARMANDO, petitioner, v. Matt KENNELLY.

No. 15-9196.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 3, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
# C_2010024EN.01001602.xml

| 30.1.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.1.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/16

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 November 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-211/09) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2006/24/EC - Electronic communications - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

2010/C 24/27

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: L. Balta and M. Karanasou Apostolopoulou, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: N. Dafniou and K. Vasiliki, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt within the prescribed period all the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2006/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks and amending Directive 2002/58/EC (OJ L 105, p. 54)

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed periods, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks and amending Directive 2002/58/EC, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed periods, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks and amending Directive 2002/58/EC, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

| 2. | Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 193 of 15.08.2009

1

---
Exhibit 21
                                                              ----------

        Direct and Indirect Subsidiaries of Commonwealth Industries, Inc.


       Name                                             State of Incorporation
       -------                                          ---------------------- 
       C I Holdings, Inc. (1)                                        Delaware

       Commonwealth Financing Corp. (1)                              Delaware

       Commonwealth Aluminum Corporation (2)                         Delaware

       Commonwealth Aluminum Sales Corporation (3)                   Delaware

       Commonal Corporation (3)                                      Barbados

       Alflex Corporation (2)                                        Delaware

       Commonwealth Aluminum Concast, Inc. (4)                         Ohio
       -------------------------------------------------------------------
         (1)  Subsidiary of Commonwealth Industries, Inc.

         (2)  Subsidiary of C I Holdings, Inc.

         (3)  Subsidiary of Commonwealth Aluminum Corporation.

         (4)  Subsidiary of Alflex Corporation.
II-00792

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Linda Smith <cauzjoy@yahoo.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 11:20 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.

Linda Smith

PO Box 651

Saint David, AZ 85630