alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2009282EN.01005002.xml

| 21.11.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 282/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.11.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/50

---

Action brought on 18 September 2009 — E.ON Ruhrgas and E.ON v Commission

(Case T-360/09)

2009/C 282/97

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicants: E.ON Ruhrgas AG (Essen, Germany), E.ON AG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: G. Wiedemann and T. Klose, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | in the alternative, reduce, as appropriate, the amount of the fine imposed on the applicants in the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, reduce, as appropriate, the amount of the fine imposed on the applicants in the contested decision;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants challenge Commission Decision C(2009) 5355 final of 8 July 2009 in Case COMP/39.401 — E.ON/GDF. In the contested decision, a fine was imposed on the applicants and another undertaking for infringement of Article 81(1) EC, as they had participated in an agreement and concerted practices in the natural gas sector.

The applicants submit six pleas in support of their action.

First, the applicants question the applicability of Article 81(1) EC, as the agreements, criticised by the Commission, do not infringe the prohibition on cartels. In that regard, they claim, in particular, that they relate to permissible ancillary arrangements for the creation of the joint venture MEGAL.

Second, the applicants submit, in the alternative, that the Commission erred in law in assessing the duration of the infringement. In that regard, they claim that the agreements at issue came to an end shortly after the beginning of liberalisation and, in any event, with the formal termination agreement of 13 August 2004.

Third, the applicants complain of discrimination compared to the parties affected by the parallel Commission decisions of 26 October 2004 in the GDF/ENI and GDF/Enel cases. In that regard, they submit that in those cases the Commission, with reference to the liberalisation which had just occurred, refrained from imposing fines and, furthermore, that it should have done the same in the present case, since the cases are comparable — identical even — in all essential aspects.

Fourth, the applicants claim that the alleged 1975 agreements are already statute-barred, since they had been terminated more than five years before the Commission’s examination.

Fifth, the applicants allege an error in law in the calculation of the fines.

Lastly, it is submitted that the Commission breached the principles concerning liability for competition law infringements, in that E.ON AG cannot be held directly, or indirectly, liable for the alleged infringements committed by E.ON Ruhrgas AG.

---
CHIEF JUSTICE

ROGELIO VALDEZ JUSTICES NELDA V. RODRIGUEZ DORI CONTRERAS GARZA GINA M. BENAVIDES GREGORY T. PERKES NORA L. LONGORIA CLERK CECILE FOY GSANGER NUECES COUNTY COURTH OUSE 901 LEOPARD, 10TH FL OOR CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS 78401 361

- 888

- 0416 (TEL) 361

- 888

- 0794 (FAX) HIDALGO COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BLDG. 100 E. CANO, 5TH FLO OR EDINBURG, TEXAS 7853 9 956

- 318

- 2405 (TEL) 956

- 318

- 2403 (FAX) www.txcourts.gov/13thcoa 

# Court of Appeals Thirteenth District of Texas

June 30, 2015 Hon. William A. White Attorney at Law PO Box 7422 Victoria, TX 77903

- 7422 * DELIVERED VIA E

- MAIL * Hon. Robert E. Bell District Attorney 115 W. Main Street, Rm. 205 Edna, TX 77957 * DELIVERED VIA E

- MAIL * Re: Cause No. 13

- 14

- 00744

- CR Tr.Ct.No. 13

- 11

- 9159 Style: Charles Dane Hill v. The State of Texas Appellant’s motion for leave to file brief and appellant ’ s motion to consolidate this appeal with cause nos. 13

- 14

- 00742

- CR and 13

- 14

- 00743

- CR for purposes of briefing were this day GRANTED by this Court. The brief has been ordered filed as of June 17, 2015, the date of rece ipt. Very truly yours,

Cecile Foy Gsanger, Clerk CFG:dot
David Lynn MOSS, petitioner, v. Lorie DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

No. 16-5864.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 23, 2017.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Mauricio Baez ROMERO, petitioner, v. DHL EXPRESS (USA), INC., et al.

No. 17-7249.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 5, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
Samir Allen FARHOUMAND, petitioner, v. Harold W. CLARKE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections.

No. 17-885.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 20, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
# C_2011269EN.01000301.xml

| 10.9.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 269/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.9.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 269/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 July 2011 — Alcoa Trasformazioni Srl v European Commission

(Case C-194/09 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - State aid - Preferential electricity tariff - Finding that there is no aid - Measure amended and extended - Decision to initiate the procedure under Article 88(2) EC - Existing or new aid - Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 - Article 1(b)(v) - Obligation to state reasons - Principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations)

2011/C 269/03

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Alcoa Trasformazioni Srl (represented by: M. Siragusa, avvocato, T. Müller-Ibold and T. Graf, Rechtsanwälte, and F. Salerno, avocat)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: N. Khan, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 25 March 2009 in Case T-332/06 Alcoa Trasformazioni Srl v Commission of the European Communities, by which that court dismissed the action seeking annulment of the Commission’s decision of 19 July 2006 to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty with regard to the extension of the preferential electricity tariff regimes granted to some energy intensive industries in Italy (State Aid C 36/06 (ex NN 38/06)), in so far as it concerns the electricity tariff for the two plants producing aluminium owned by the applicant in Fusina (Veneto) and Portovesme (Sardinia)

Alcoa Trasformazioni Srl

Commission of the European Communities

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Alcoa Trasformazioni Srl to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Alcoa Trasformazioni Srl to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 193, 15.8.2009.

1

---
Charles WASHPUN, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-7749.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 19, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
II-00415

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Kathy McGrogan <cdolfin51 @sccc.tv>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 8:32 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.

Kathy McGrogan

134 Gov. Johnston Rd.

Georgetown, SC 29440
David GILL, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-7828.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 26, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed 

November 13, 2015.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-15-00922-CV

IN RE AMERICAN RISK INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

268th District Court

Fort Bend County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 14-DCV-213947

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On October 29, 2015, relator American Risk Insurance Company, Inc. filed 

a petition for writ of mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221 

(West 2004); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this court to 

compel the Honorable Brady G. Elliot, presiding judge of the 268th District Court 

of Fort Bend County, to vacate its order denying relator’s motion to compel 

appraisal and to grant such motion.
Mandamus issues only to correct a clear abuse when there is no other 

adequate remedy by law. Johnson v. Fourth Court of Appeals, 700 S.W.2d 916, 

917 (Tex.1985) (orig. proceeding). Relator has not established that it is entitled to 

mandamus relief. We therefore deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.

Relator has also filed an emergency motion to stay the trial set for November 

16, 2015. Because we deny the petition for writ of mandamus, we also deny the 

motion for stay.

 PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Boyce, Busby, and Brown.
IV 

House Calendar No. 14 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 205 

[Report No. 111–23] 

Providing for further consideration of the bill (H.R. 1106) to prevent 

mortgage foreclosures and enhance mortgage credit availability. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 4, 2009 

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered 

to be printed 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for further consideration of the bill (H.R. 1106) 

to prevent mortgage foreclosures and enhance mortgage 

credit availability. 

1 Resolved, That during further consideration of the bill 

2 (H.R. 1106) to prevent mortgage foreclosures and en3 hance mortgage credit availability, pursuant to House 

4 Resolution 190, amendment number 1 printed in House 

5 Report 111–21 shall be considered as perfected by the 

6 modification printed in the report of the Committee on 

7 Rules accompanying this resolution. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
House Calendar No. 14 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 205 

[Report No. 111–23] 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for further consideration of the bill (H.R. 

hance mortgage credit availability. 1106) to prevent mortgage foreclosures and enMARCH 4, 2009 

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
II-01065

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Maxine Walker <silvermaxie@comcast.net>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 8:35 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.

Maxine Walker

5811 Carnarion Duvall Rd NE

Carnation, WA 98014
<PAGE>

Exhibit 11.1

<TABLE>
                              COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE

<CAPTION>
                                                                 Three Months Ended
                                                                      March 31,
                                                           -------------------------------
                                                              2000                 1999
                                                           ----------           ----------
                                                   (In thousands, except share and per share data)

<S>                                                        <C>                  <C>
Average common shares outstanding                           6,139,750            6,551,835

Average common stock equivalents of
   options outstanding - based on the
   treasury stock method using market price                    42,190              128,650
                                                           ----------           ----------

Average diluted common shares outstanding                   6,181,940            6,680,485
                                                           ==========           ==========

Net income                                                 $    1,635           $    1,002

Basic earnings per common share                                  0.27                 0.15

Diluted earnings per common share                                0.26                 0.15
</TABLE>
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 9, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 136482 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, JOSEPH BURLINGAME, III, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 136482 

 COA: 284294 
 Sanilac CC: 05-030686-NI 

NATIONSRENT, INC. and JASON

BROWN, 

 Defendants, 

and 

NANCY BROWN,

 Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 9, 2008 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

d0828 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

September 9, 2008 

 Clerk
Jeffrey A. WIEST, et ux., petitioners, v. TYCO ELECTRONICS CORPORATION.

No. 15-1429.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 3, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.

Justice ALITO took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
James ALEXANDER, petitioner, v. FLORIDA.

No. 16-6759.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District denied.
Exhibit 8.1

The following is a list of the significant subsidiaries of CEMEX, S.A.B. de C.V. as of December 31, 2012, including the name of each subsidiary and its country of incorporation.



|    |  |                                           |  |         
|--- |  | ----------------------------------------- |  | --------
|1.  |  | CEMEX México, S.A. de C.V.                |  | MEXICO  
|2.  |  | CEMEX Agregados, S.A. de C.V.             |  | MEXICO  
|3.  |  | CEMEX Central, S.A. de C.V.               |  | MEXICO  
|4.  |  | CEMEX Concretos, S.A. de C.V.             |  | MEXICO  
|5.  |  | CEMEX España, S.A.                        |  | SPAIN   
|6.  |  | CEMEX España Operaciones, S.L.U.          |  | SPAIN   
|7.  |  | Cemex Corp.                               |  | USA     
|8.  |  | CEMEX Construction Materials Florida, LLC |  | USA     
|9.  |  | CEMEX Materials, LLC                      |  | USA     
|10. |  | CEMEX Finance LLC                         |  | USA     
|11. |  | CEMEX, Inc.                               |  | USA     
|12. |  | CEMEX Construction Materials Pacific, LLC |  | USA     
|13. |  | Gulf Coast Portland Cement Co.            |  | USA     
|14. |  | CEMEX Southeast LLC                       |  | USA     
|15. |  | Ready Mix USA LLC                         |  | USA     
|16. |  | CEMEX Colombia S.A.                       |  | COLOMBIA
|17. |  | Assiut Cement Company                     |  | EGYPT   
|18. |  | CEMEX Beton Ile de France (SAS)           |  | FRANCE  
|19. |  | Cemento Bayano, S.A.                      |  | PANAMA
II-00879

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Robert Varela <rvrnc@hotmail.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 10:24 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.

Robert Varela

6924 N. Lois Avenue

Tampa, FL 33614
1211.

#### CRAWFORD *v.*THE STATE.

Where the same name appears in different parts of a record, it will, especially in the absence of any indication that there was a dispute as to identity, be held to refer to the same person in each instance.

Accusation of stabbing, from city court of Tifton — Judge Eve. April 16, 1908.

Submitted June 30,

Decided July 8, 1908.

*509
      *Smith & Foy,*for plaintiff in error.

*W. J. Wallace, solicitor,*contra.

Powell, J.

The defendant was accused and convicted of stabbing Sewell Holmes. The only point in the case deserving any serious attention is' the contention presented hy the plaintiff in error that it does not appear from the record that the person shown to have been stabbed was the same person mentioned in that connection in the accusation. The brief of the evidence begins with the statement, “Holmes, sworn for the State, testified as follows;” and the testimony of this witness relates to his being stabbed by the defendant. The name of no other Holmes appears anywhere in the record. The brief of the evidence is duly entitled in the cause, and of course relates back to the accusation; so that when the court speaks of Holmes in the brief of evidence, the use of this name can, in all common sense, refer to no other person than the one of the same name previously mentioned in the record. If any other Holmes had been intended, counsel for the accused,, who prepared the brief of evidence, would have been quick to indicate that fact. Language is but a vehicle for the conveyance of ideas; and the language here used brings us no other idea than that the man testifying was the same man named in the accusation. As to such points, the application of more of common sense and less of technicality is in accord with later-day notions of the courts. *Judgment affirmed.*