alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2010317EN.01000902.xml

| 20.11.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 317/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.11.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 317/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 30 September 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Stadt Graz v Strabag AG, Teerag-Asdag AG, Bauunternehmung Granit GesmbH

(Case C-314/09) (1)

1

(Directive 89/665/EEC - Public procurement - Review procedures - Actions for damages - Unlawful award - National rule on liability based on a presumption that the contracting authority is at fault)

2010/C 317/17

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Stadt Graz

Applicant:

Defendants: Strabag AG, Teerag-Asdag AG, Bauunternehmung Granit GesmbH

Defendants:

In the presence of: Land Steiermark

In the presence of

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberster Gerichtshof — Interpretation of Articles 1(1) and 2(1)(c) and (7) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts (OJ 1989 L 395, p. 33) — Award of a public contract in accordance with a decision of the appeal court which binds the contracting authority — Unlawfulness of the award of the public contract in consequence of an infringement of national legislation — Necessary conditions for an action for damages and interest — Principle of effectiveness

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts, as amended by Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which makes the right to damages for an infringement of public procurement law by a contracting authority conditional on that infringement being culpable, including where the application of that legislation rests on a presumption that the contracting authority is at fault and on the fact that the latter cannot rely on a lack of individual abilities, hence on the defence that it cannot be held accountable for the alleged infringement.

---

(1)  OJ C 267, 07.11.2009.

1

---
# C_2012013EN.01001102.xml

| 14.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 13/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 13/11

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 November 2011 — EFIM v Commission

(Case T-296/09) (1)

1

(Competition - Concerted practice - Abuse of a dominant position - Markets for ink cartridges - Decision rejecting a complaint - No Community interest)

2012/C 13/21

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Federation of Ink and Ink Cartridge Manufacturers (EFIM) (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: D. Ehle, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Antoniadis and A. Biolan, Agents, and W. Berg, lawyer)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the defendant: Lexmark International Technology SA (Meyrin, Switzerland) (represented by: R. Snelders, lawyer, and G. Eclair-Heath, Solicitor)

Intervener in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 4125 of 20 May 2009 rejecting complaint COMP/C-3/39.391 concerning purported infringements of Articles 81 EC and 82 EC by Hewlett-Packard, Lexmark, Canon and Epson in the market for ink cartridges.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders European Federation of Ink and Ink Cartridge Manufacturers (EFIM) to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders European Federation of Ink and Ink Cartridge Manufacturers (EFIM) to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission;

| 3. | Orders Lexmark International Technology SA to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Lexmark International Technology SA to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 256, 24.10.2009.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollars

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                    SEP-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                           1
<CASH>                                    0
<SECURITIES>                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                    38,763,000
<ALLOWANCES>                      1,283,000
<INVENTORY>                      27,305,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                 75,163,000
<PP&E>                           82,585,000
<DEPRECIATION>                    7,840,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  161,372,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>            73,694,000
<BONDS>                          40,140,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                37,500
<PREFERRED>                               0
<COMMON>                             72,351
<OTHER-SE>                       15,663,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    162,042,000
<SALES>                          80,196,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                 80,196,000
<CGS>                            59,599,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                    59,599,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                 14,898,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                      3,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                1,832,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                   4,074,000
<INCOME-TAX>                     (4,184,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>               8,258,000
<DISCONTINUED>                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                      8,258,000
<EPS-BASIC>                          1.08
<EPS-DILUTED>                           .85



</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 124 (Wednesday, June 27, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34199-34200]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-16027]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Office of the Secretary


Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB 
Review; Comment Request

    The Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the 
Secretary publishes a list of information collections it has submitted 
to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance in 
compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 
35) and 5 CFR 1320.5. The following are those information collections 
recently submitted to OMB.
    1. Title X Grantees Family Planning Annual Report--0990-0221--
Revision--The Office of Population Affairs collects annual data from 
Title X Grantees to assure compliance with legislative and regulatory 
requirements and identify areas where grantees may require assistance. 
Respondents: Title X Family Planning Program Grantees; Annual Number of 
Respondents: 85; Average Burden per Response: 22 hours; Annual Burden: 
1,870 hours; Average Annual Cost per Respondent: $550; Annual Cost: 
$46,750.
    OMB Desk Officer: Allison Eydt.
    Copies of the information collection packages listed above can be 
obtained by calling the OS Reports Clearance

[[Page 34200]]

Officer on (202) 690-6207. Written comments and recommendations for the 
proposed information collection should be sent directly to the OMB desk 
officer designated above at the following address: Human Resources and 
Housing Branch, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office 
Building, Room 10235, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503.
    Comments may also be sent to Cynthia Agens Bauer, OS Reports 
Clearance Officer, Room 503H, Humphrey Building, 200 Independence 
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20201. Written comments should be received 
within 30 days of this notice.

    Dated: June 19, 2001.
Kerry Weems,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary, Budget.
[FR Doc. 01-16027 Filed 6-26-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4150-34-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-26-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-27-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-26-1999
<CASH>                                           7,333
<SECURITIES>                                    22,864
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,990
<ALLOWANCES>                                       301
<INVENTORY>                                      2,549
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                41,197
<PP&E>                                           9,225
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,458
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  49,590
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,675
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            11
<OTHER-SE>                                      44,904
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    49,590
<SALES>                                         43,340
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                43,340
<CGS>                                           13,979
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   13,979
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   142
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  17
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,836
<INCOME-TAX>                                       292
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,544
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,544
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.51
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.47


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-7621

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus JOHN DALEY STRASSINI, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge. (3:97-cr-00054; 3:98-cr-00220; 3:03-cv-00550) Submitted: November 15, 2006 Decided:November 27, 2006
Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Daley Strassini, Appellant Pro Se. Karen Elise Eady, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).*For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266 (1988).
- 2 - PER CURIAM: John Daley Strassini seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. When the United States or its officer or agency is a party, the notice of appeal must be filed no more than sixty days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Dir., Dep’t of Corr. , 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson , 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). The district court’s order was entered on the docket on November 7, 2005. The notice of appeal was filed on September 8, 2006. *In the notice of appeal, Strassini stated that he did not receive notice of the district court’s order denying his § 2255 motion until August 25, 2006, and the district court determined that his appeal was therefore timely. Under Rule 4(a)(6), however, the district court may only reopen an appeal period if the motion- 3 - to reopen is filed within the earlier of 180 days after the entry of the order appealed, or within seven days after the appellant’s receipt of notice of the entry of the order. In this case, Strassini’s notice of appeal, construed as a motion to reopen the appeal period, was not filed within 180 days of the entry of the district court’s order, and was filed nine days after Strassini received notice of that order. The district court therefore incorrectly concluded that Strassini’s notice of appeal was timely, as the court did not have authority to reopen the appeal period. Because Strassini failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Office of the Secretary

          - [Transmittal No. 01-18]

# AGENCY:

Department of Defense, Defense Security Cooperation Agency.

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. J. Hurd, DSCA/COMPT/RM, (703) 604-6575.

The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 01-18 with attached transmittal and policy justification.

Dated: June 21, 2001.

L.M. Bynum,

Alternative OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

      ( print page 34172)          ( print page 34173)          ( print page 34174)          ( print page 34175)          ( print page 34176)    

BILLING CODE 5001-08-M

[FR Doc. 01-16037  Filed 6-26-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-08-C
Travis ROBINSON, petitioner, v. CALIFORNIA.

No. 16-6205.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 5, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District denied.
Andrew U.D. STRAW, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES, et al.

No. 17-7536.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 19, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
Harold Eugene BELL, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-678.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 19, 2018.

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

Justice GORSUCH took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
Ross SCOPELLITI, petitioner, v. CITY OF TAMPA, FLORIDA.

No. 17-1075.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 19, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
In Re Nathanael Lenard REYNOLDS, petitioner.

No. 16-9370.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied, and the petition for writ of mandamus dismissed. See Rule 39.8.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Transportation

###### Federal Aviation Administration

          - 14 CFR Part 71
          - [Airspace Docket No. 2000-ASW-19] 

# AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

# ACTION:

Direct final rule; confirmation of effective date. 

# SUMMARY:

This notice confirms the effective date of a direct final rule which revises the Class E Airspace at Atlanta, TX.

# EFFECTIVE DATE:

The direct final rule published at 65 FR 67625 is effective 0901 UTC, March 22, 2001.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Donald J. Day, Airspace Branch, Air Traffic Division, Southwest Region, Federal Aviation Administration, Forth Worth, TX 76193-0520, telephone: 817-222-5593. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The FAA published this direct final rule with a request for comments in the                     **Federal                               ( print page 8364)                            Register**                     on November 13, 2000, (65 FR 67625). The FAA uses the direct final rulemaking procedure for a noncontroversial rule where the FAA believes that there will be no adverse public comment. this direct final rule advised the public that no adverse comments were anticipated, and that unless a written adverse comment, or a written notice of intent to submit such an adverse comment, were received within the comment period, the regulation would become effective on March 22, 2001. No adverse comments were received, and, thus, this action confirms that this direct final rule will be effective on that date.                

Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on January 8, 2001.

Robert N. Stevens,

Acting Manager, Air Traffic Division, Southwest Region.

[FR Doc. 01-1550  Filed 1-30-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Kenneth RIVERA, petitioner, v. Bryan STIRLING, et al.

No. 16-9337.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
# C_2009167EN.01001201.xml

| 18.7.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 167/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.7.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 167/12

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 25 May 2009 — Biofrescos v Commission

(Case T-159/09 R)

(Application for interim measures - Application for suspension of operation - Submission of the application - Inadmissibility - Financial loss - Lack of urgency)

2009/C 167/25

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Biofrescos — Comércio de Produtos Alimentares, Lda (Linda-a-Velha, Portugal) (represented by: A. Magalhães Menezes, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: R. Lyal, P. Guerra e Andrade and L. Bouyon, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for suspension of the recovery of import duties not yet demanded of the applicant, in so far as that recovery was ordered by Commission Decision C (2009) 72 final of 16 January 2009, finding that it is justified to proceed to recovery a posteriori of those duties and that remission of those duties is not justified in the applicant’s case.

a posteriori

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | Costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Costs are reserved.

---
# C_2009205EN.01003901.xml

| 29.8.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 205/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 205/39

---

Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 2 July 2009 — Insula v Commission

(Case T-246/09 R)

(Application for interim measures - Debit notes - Application for suspension of operation - Failure to comply with formal requirements - Inadmissibility)

2009/C 205/72

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Conseil scientifique international pour le développement des îles (Insula) (Paris, France) (represented by: P. Marsal and J.-D. Simonet, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for suspension of the operation of two debit notes requiring the repayment of sums of money paid to the applicant under subsidy contracts

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | Costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Costs are reserved.

---
Mark Duane SHEEHAN, petitioner, v. MONTANA.

No. 17-7187.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 20, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Montana denied.