alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2010288EN.01001501.xml

| 23.10.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 288/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.10.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 288/15

---

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 17 June 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Anotato Dikastirio Kyprou (Republic of Cyprus)) — Giorgos Michalias v Christina A. Ioannou-Michalia

(Case C-312/09) (1)

(Article 104(3), second paragraph of the Rules of Procedure - Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 - Articles 2, 42 and 46 - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction in matrimonial matters - Accession of a State to the European Union - Divorce proceedings commenced before accession - Temporal scope of Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000))

(2010/C 288/23)

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Anotato Dikastirio Kyprou

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Giorgos Michalias

Defendant: Christina A. Ioannou-Michalia

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Anotato Diastirio Kyprou — Jurisdiction of the courts of a Member State (Cyprus) to interpret and apply Articles 2(1), 42 and 46 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 of 29 May 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and in matters of parental responsibility for children of both spouses (OJ 2000 L 160, p. 19) — Divorce proceedings commenced by the husband before the courts of Cyprus after the entry into force of the regulation but before Cyprus became a Member State — Divorce proceedings begun by the wife after 1 May 2004 before the courts of another Member State (United Kingdom) which was a Member State throughout the relevant period — Both spouses being Cypriot nationals but having their permanent residence in the United Kingdom.

Operative part

Council Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 of 29 May 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and in matters of parental responsibility for children of both spouses is not applicable to divorce proceedings brought before the courts of a State before the latter became a Member State of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ C 244 of 10.10.2009.

---
Steven CIOTTA, petitioner, v. Paul BRAZELTON, Warden.

No. 15-9316.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 3, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
# C_2010024EN.01004202.xml

| 30.1.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.1.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/42

---

Action brought on 30 November 2009 — Commission v Italian Republic

(Case C-486/09)

2010/C 24/73

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Condou-Durande and N. Bambara, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Italian Republic

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Regulation (EC) No 1030/2002 of 13 June 2002, (1) the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 1 and 9 of the regulation; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Regulation (EC) No 1030/2002 of 13 June 2002, (1) the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 1 and 9 of the regulation;

1

| — | Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Article 1 in conjunction with Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1030/2002 requires the Member States to take all the measures necessary to issue a uniform format for residence permits for third-country nationals by 14 August 2003.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1030/2002 of 13 June 2002 laying down a uniform format for residence permits for third-country nationals (OJ 2002 L 157, p. 1).

1

---
Adrian D. PUGH, petitioner, v. MONTGOMERY COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION.

No. 16-6580.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied. Petitioner allowed until January 30, 2017, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.
Pedro VAZQUEZ-MENDEZ, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-6492.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 28, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied.
Larry BANKS, petitioner, v. David DAVEY, Warden.

No. 15-9500.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 3, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Nakia HORTON, petitioner, v. Mark GARMAN, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Rockview, et al.

No. 16-6651.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
Exhibit 31.1
**CERTIFICATIONS**
I, Eric M. Reuter, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Laserscope; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows ofthe registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrantand have:
 a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,to ensure that material information relating to the registrant,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s boardof directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal controls over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability torecord, process, summarize and report financial information; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.   Date: November 8, 2004      /s/ Eric M. Reuter     Eric M. Reuter Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
1 The Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon, Chie f Judge, United States District Court for the District of Nebraska. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 06-1731

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Nebraska. Laron L. Newman, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: May 2, 2007 Filed: May 7, 2007

___________ Before RILEY, MAGILL, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Laron Newman (Newman) appeals the 96-month prison sentence the district court 1 imposed upon him after granting the government’s Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(b) motion to reduce Newman ’s sentence for his post-sentencing substantial assistance. Newman’s counsel ha s moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing the district court abused its discretion by not taking into account the level of Newman’s cooperation and his-2- rehabilitative efforts in prison when deci ding how far to depart from the advisory Guidelines. Counsel’s argument is without merit. See United States v. Coppedge , 135 F.3d 598, 599 (8th Cir. 1998) (per curiam) (conc luding a challenge to the extent of a sentence reduction upon the government’s Rule 35(b) motion was unreviewable because the appeal was not based on any criteria listed in18 U.S.C. § 3742(a)); United States v. Haskins , 479 F.3d 955, 957 (8th Cir. 2007) (per curiam) (holding a court lacks jurisdiction to consider the reasonableness of a sentence following a Rule 35(b) reduction; and United States v. Booker , 543 U.S. 220 (2005), did not expand § 3742(a) to include appellate review of discretionary sentencing reductions). Cf. United States v. Pepper , 412 F.3d 995, 998-99 (8th Cir. 2005) (deciding only assistance facts, and not other factors, can be considered in a substantial assistance downward departure). Having reviewed the record i ndependently under Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm.

______________________________
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          87,172
<SECURITIES>                                    59,032
<RECEIVABLES>                                   55,908
<ALLOWANCES>                                     7,346
<INVENTORY>                                     37,642
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               277,109
<PP&E>                                          81,596
<DEPRECIATION>                                  37,976
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 466,269
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           52,090
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       187,916
<OTHER-SE>                                      91,904
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   466,269
<SALES>                                         82,507
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                82,507
<CGS>                                           66,829
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   66,829
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                42,527
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,609
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (280)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (751)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,121
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,121
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.08
        



                                       

</TABLE>
Filed By:NTS-Properties V, a Maryland Limited Partnership
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         750,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               41,018,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   360,000
<INVENTORY>                                 65,111,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           107,181,000
<PP&E>                                     142,926,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              73,859,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             410,352,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       71,653,000
<BONDS>                                    264,500,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     10,000
<COMMON>                                        11,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 (15,242,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               410,352,000
<SALES>                                    224,296,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           224,296,000
<CGS>                                      140,707,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              140,707,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            13,527,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                25,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          22,969,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             25,850,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 5,767,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         20,083,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              1,713,000
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                18,370,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
II-00185

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

James Melik <j_melik@yahoo.com>

Friday, December 3, 2010 10:57 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.

James Melik

9400 Duffield Rd

Moxee, WA 98936
# C_2010246EN.01000802.xml

| 11.9.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 246/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.9.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 246/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 29 July 2010 — Anheuser-Busch Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Budějovický Budvar, národní podnik

(Case C-214/09 P) (1)

1

(Appeals - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Application for registration of the word mark BUDWEISER - Opposition - Article 8(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation No 40/94 - Earlier international word and figurative marks BUDWEISER and Budweiser Budvar - Genuine use of the earlier trade mark - Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation No 40/94 - Submission of evidence ‘in due time’ - Certificate of renewal for the earlier mark - Article 74(2) of Regulation No 40/94)

2010/C 246/13

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Anheuser-Busch Inc. (represented by: V. von Bomhard and B. Goebel, Rechtsanwälte)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral), Budějovický Budvar, národní podnik (represented by: K. Čermák, advokát)

Other parties to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 25 March 2009 in Case T-191/07 Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) by which that Court dismissed an action brought by the applicant for the word mark “BUDWEISER” for goods in class 32 seeking annulment of Decision R 299/2006-2 of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 March 2007, dismissing the appeal against the decision of the Opposition Division refusing registration of the mark in opposition proceedings brought by the proprietor of the international figurative and word marks “BUDWEISER” and “Budweiser Budvar” for goods in classes 31 and 32.

Anheuser-Busch, Inc

Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Anheuser-Busch Inc. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Anheuser-Busch Inc. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 193, 15.8.2009.

1

---
----

Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1153/2004 of 23 June 2004 fixing the A1 and B export refunds for fruit and vegetables (tomatoes, oranges, table grapes, apples and peaches)

(Official Journal of the European Union L 223 of 24 June 2004)

On page 8, footnote 2, destination F09, first indent: ‘Slovenia’ is deleted.

----
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Fulton Bancshares Corporation (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2005 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, DebraA. Goodling, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that:

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

(2)The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| Date: November 14, 2005 | By:                             | /s/Debra A. Goodling |
|-------------------------|---------------------------------|----------------------|
|                    | Debra A. Goodling ,             |
|                    | Interim Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
Rodney Lee RIGGINS, petitioner, v. Amy MILLER, Warden, et al.

No. 16-5834.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Exhibit 10.5


 





AMENDMENT TO THE


EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


 


 


This Amendment (“Amendment”)
is entered into as of the 23rd day of May 2016, by and between Home Bank, N.A. (the “Bank”) and Scott A.
Ridley (the “Executive”).


 


WITNESSETH


 


WHEREAS, the
Bank and the Executive previously entered into an Employment Agreement, dated as of January 27, 2014 (the “Agreement”);
and


 


WHEREAS, the
parties desire to amend the Agreement in order to extend its term, as provided in Section 2(b) thereof.


 


NOW, THEREFORE,
the parties hereto, intending to be legally bound hereby, agree as follows:


 


1.The
last sentence in Section 2(a) of the Agreement is amended and restated to read as follows: “The terms and conditions of
this Agreement shall be and remain in effect during the period beginning on the Effective Date of this Agreement and ending on
June 22, 2018, plus such extensions, if any, as are provided pursuant to Section 2(b) hereof (the “Employment Period”).”


 


2.Except
to the extent expressly amended hereby, the Agreement shall continue unmodified and shall remain in full force and effect.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
this Amendment has been duly executed by the parties hereto as of the day and year first written above.


 








	 	HOME BANK, N.A.
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/ John W. Bordelon
	 	 	John W. Bordelon
	 	 	President and Chief Executive Officer
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	EXECUTIVE
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	/s/ Scott A. Ridley
	 	Scott A. Ridley
David Thomas SILVERS, Sr., petitioner, v. IREDELL COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, et al.

No. 16-638.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 17, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
Exhibit 32.2

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

In connection with the periodic report of PLXTechnology, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period endedSeptember 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the"Report"), I, Rafael Torres,****Chief Financial Officer****ofthe Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of myknowledge:

the Report fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,and 

the information contained in the Report fairly presents,in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations ofthe Company at the dates and for the periods indicated.  

This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed,"filed" with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Date: April 29, 2004
                          /s/ RafaelTorres	 
Rafael Torres, Chief FinancialOfficer