alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2011103EN.01001001.xml

| 2.4.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.4.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 17 February 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-321/10) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2007/2/EC - Environment policy - Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) - Exchange and updates of data in electronic format - Incomplete transposition)

2011/C 103/15

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Sénéchal, Agent)

Applicant:

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: T. Materne and M. Jacobs, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt or to communicate, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2007/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2007 establishing an Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) (OJ 2007 L 108, p. 1)

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2007/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2007 establishing an Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE), the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2007/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2007 establishing an Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE), the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

| 2. | Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 246, 11.9.2010.

1

---
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 3.1.1

                                   RESOLUTION:

                AUTHORIZE APPOINTMENT OF ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR (S)

Upon motion duly made and seconded, the Board of Directors of PowerSource
Corporation unanimously adopted the following resolution:

RESOLVE, that

Betty Gail Howard
Richard D. Boyd
Richard S. Manns

Be appointed the director of PowerSource Corporation. The new appointed
directors shall have the authority to perform duties in the management of the
corporation as may be required by the Articles of Incorporation, the Bylaws or
by resolution of the Board of Directors of the corporation.

The undersigned hereby certifies that he/she is the duly elected and qualified
Secretary and the custodian of the books and records and seal of PowerSource, a
corporation duly formed pursuant to the laws of the State of Nevada, and that
the foregoing is a true record of a resolution duly adopted at a meeting of
Board of Directors, and that said meeting was held in accordance with state law
and the bylaws of the above-named Corporation on, and that said resolution is
now in full force and effect without modification or rescission.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have executed my name as Secretary and have hereunto
affixed the corporate seal of the above-named Corporation this 1st day of July
2000.

A True Record

/s/ Roman Gordon
----------------------------
BY: Roman Gordon, Secretary
# C_2009282EN.01005501.xml

| 21.11.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 282/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.11.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/55

---

Action brought on 24 September 2009 — Retractable Technologies. v OHIM — Abbott Laboratories (RT)

(Case T-371/09)

2009/C 282/103

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Retractable Technologies, Inc. (Little Elm, Texas, United States of America) (represented by: K. Dröge, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Abbott Laboratories (Abbott Park IL, United States of America)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 24 July 2009 in Case R 1234/2008-4; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 24 July 2009 in Case R 1234/2008-4;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Retractable Technologies, Inc.

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘RT’ for goods in Class 10 (Application No 4 129 037)

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Abbott Laboratories

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The Spanish word mark ‘RTH’ for goods in Class 10

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in part

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1), since there is no likelihood of confusion between the signs at issue.

Pleas in law:

1

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).

1

---
Lamar BLAKE, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 15-9499.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 3, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 123 (Tuesday, June 26, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33983-33985]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-15916]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET


Cumulative Report on Rescissions and Deferrals

June 1, 2001.
    Section 1014(e) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control 
Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344) requires a monthly report listing all 
budget authority for the current fiscal year for which, as of the first 
day of the month, a special message had been transmitted to Congress.
    This report gives the status, as of June 1, 2001, of two deferrals 
contained in one special message for FY 2001. The message was 
transmitted to Congress on January 18, 2001.

Deferrals (Attachments A and B)

    As of June 1, 2001, $1.4 billion in budget authority was being 
deferred from obligation. Attachment B shows the status of each 
deferral reported during FY 2001.

Information From Special Message

    The special message containing information on the deferrals that 
are covered by this cumulative report is printed in the edition of the 
Federal Register cited below:

66 FR 8985, Monday, February 5, 2001

Mitchell E. Daniels, Jr.,
Director.

                Attachment A--Status of FY 2001 Deferrals
                        [In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Budgetary
                                                             resources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deferrals proposed by the President.....................         1,946.7
Routine Executive releases through June 1, 2001.........          -551.8
Overturned by the Congress..............................  ..............
                                                         ---------------
Currently before the Congress...........................         1,394.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------


BILLING CODE 3110-01-P

[[Page 33984]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN26JN01.060


[[Page 33985]]


[FR Doc. 01-15916 Filed 6-25-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3110-01-C
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18

- 60088 Summary Calendar

SALAH ATIA, also known as Rodberg , Petitioner

v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL , Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A212 904 238

Before BENAVIDES, HIGGINSON, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Salah Atia, a native and citizen of Syria, petitions this court for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal of the denial of his applications for asylum and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT ). Atia argue s that the BIA’s denia l o f asylum based on his religion and opposition to military conscription is not supported by substantial evidence and nei ther is its denial of his claim for CAT

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 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 5 TH C IR

. R

. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED October 31, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 18-60088 Document: 00514704714 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/31/2018N o. 18

- 60088

2 protection. Atia also asserts that the IJ and BIA failed to adjudicate his claim for withholding of removal. Atia did not ar gue before the BIA that the IJ failed to adjudicate his withholding of removal claim . As a threshold matter, the IJ specifically
conclude d that Atia had not met the standard for withholdi ng. In any event,
because he did not exhaust his contentions that the IJ and BIA did not sufficiently address withholding, we lack jurisdiction to consider this claim. See Omari v. Holder , 562 F. 3d 314, 320 (5th Cir. 2009); Roy v. Ashcroft , 389 F.3d 132, 137 (5th Cir. 2004)

. W e review for substantial evidence the determination that an alien is not eligible for relief. Zhang v. Gonzales , 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 2005). Under that standard, we may not reverse the factual findings of the BIA unless the evidence compels it, i.e., the evidence must be so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could conclude against it. Wang v. Holder , 569 F.3d 531,
536

- 37 (5th Cir. 2009). Our review of the briefs and record satisfy us that s ubstantial evidence supports the conclusion that Atia was not entitled to asylum or withholding of
removal based on any of his claims of persecution. See Chen v. Gonzales , 4 70 F.3d 1131, 1136

- 38 (5th Cir. 2006) ; Zhao v. Gonzales , 404 F.3d 295, 307 (5th Cir. 2005) ; Milat v. Holder , 755 F.3d 354, 361 (5th Cir. 2014). Finally, regarding Atia’s entitlement to protection under the CAT , the record evidence
would not co mpel a reasonable person to reach a different conclusion than that of the IJ and BIA

. See Ontunez

- Tursios v. Ashcroft , 303 F.3d 341, 354

- 55 (5th Cir. 2002). PETITION DENIED IN PART AND DISMISSED IN PART FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

. Case: 18-60088 Document: 00514704714 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/31/2018
Exhibit 13(a).2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 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 Annual Report of CDC Corporation (the Company) on Form 20-F for
the period ended December 31, 2006, as amended by this Amendment No. 2 on Form 20-F/A, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Form 20-F/A) I, Peter Yip, principal financial officer of the Company,
certify that:

(1) The Form 20-F/A 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 Form 20-F/A fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: September 15, 2008



|                           
|---------------------------
|/s/ Peter Yip              
|Peter Yip                  
|Principal Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating,
acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to CDC Corporation and will be retained by CDC Corporation and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 124 (Wednesday, June 27, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34272-34273]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-16164]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration


A Special Joint Session of the Working Groups on Increasing 
Pension Coverage, Participation and Savings and Preparing for 
Retirement Advisory Council on Employee Welfare and Pension Benefits 
Plan; Notice of Meeting

    Pursuant to the authority contained in section 512 of the Employee 
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1142, two of 
the three Working Groups assigned by the Advisory Council on Employee 
Welfare and Pension Benefit Plans to study the issue of increasing 
pension coverage, participation and savings as well as the issue of 
preparing for retirement will meet jointly at an open public meeting on 
Tuesday, July 17, 2001, in Room N-5437 A-C, U.S. Department of Labor 
Building, Second and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210.
    The purpose of the joint open meeting, which will run from 9:00 
a.m. to approximately 4:30 p.m., with a short break at noon for an in-
place luncheon, is for Working Group members to hear testimony from 
several invited witnesses who'll discuss factors which either encourage 
or inhibit the growth of pension plan coverage and, ultimately, 
retirement security as well as what ``best practices'' there are that 
actually assist Americans facing retirement in the near future.
    Members of the public are encouraged to file a written statement 
pertaining to the topic(s) by sending 20 copies on or before July 10, 
2001, to Sharon Morrissey, Executive Secretary, ERISA Advisory Council, 
U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-5677, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW, 
Washington, DC 20210. Individuals or representatives of organizations 
wishing to address the Working Group(s) should forward their request to 
the Executive Secretary or telephone (202) 219-8753. Oral presentations 
will be limited to 20 minutes, but an extended statement may be 
submitted for the record. Individuals with disabilities, who need 
special accommodations, should contact Sharon

[[Page 34273]]

Morrissey by July 10, at the address indicated in this notice.
    Organizations or individuals may also submit statements for the 
record without testifying. Twenty (20) copies of such statements should 
be sent to the Executive Secretary of the Advisory Council at the above 
address. Papers will be accepted and included in the record of the 
meeting if received on or before July 10.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 21st day of June 2001.
Ann L. Combs,
Assistant Secretary, Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration.
[FR Doc. 01-16164 Filed 6-26-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-29-M
Isaac Lee HYKES, petitioner, v. Steven T. MNUCHIN, Secretary of the Treasury.

No. 16-1397.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
Jonathan MILLER, petitioner, v. Ken CAMERON, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Houtzdale, et al.

No. 16-6404.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 28, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
Curtis SPARKS, Jr., petitioner, v. Contessa BELL, et al.

No. 17M81.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 20, 2018.

Motion to direct the Clerk to file a petition for writ of certiorari out of time denied.
# C_2011362EN.01001702.xml

| 10.12.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 362/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.12.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 362/17

---

Order of the General Court of 20 October 2011 — United Phosphorus v Commission

(Case T-95/09) (1)

1

(Plant protection products - Active substance napropamide - Non-inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC - Adoption of a subsequent directive - No need to adjudicate)

2011/C 362/24

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: United Phosphorus Ltd (Warrington, Cheshire, United Kingdom) (represented by: C. Mereu and K. Van Maldegem, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Parpala and N.B. Rasmussen, and subsequently by L. Parpala, acting as Agents, and by J. Stuyck, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2008/902/EC of 7 November 2008 concerning the non-inclusion of napropamide in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing that substance.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | Each party shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Each party shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 102, 1.5.2009.

1

---
# C_2011269EN.01001602.xml

| 10.9.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 269/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.9.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 269/16

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 21 July 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Telefónica de España SA v Administración del Estado

(Case C-284/10) (1)

1

(Directive 97/13/EC - Common framework for general authorisations and individual licences in the field of telecommunications services - Fees and charges applicable to undertakings holding general authorisations - Article 6 - Interpretation - National legislation imposing an annual fee calculated on the basis of a percentage of gross operating income)

2011/C 269/26

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Telefónica de España SA

Applicant:

Defendant: Administración del Estado

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal Supremo — Interpretation of Directive 97/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 April 1997 on a common framework for general authorisations and individual licences in the field of telecommunications services (in particular, Article 6 thereof) (OJ 1997 L 117, p. 15) — Fees and charges applicable to undertakings holding general authorisations — Imposition of financial payments above and beyond those authorised by the directive and for a purpose not provided for therein

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 6 of Directive 97/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 April 1997 on a common framework for general authorisations and individual licences in the field of telecommunications services must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State introducing a fee imposed on holders of general authorisations, calculated annually and on the basis of the gross operating income of the chargeable operators, which seeks to cover the administrative costs relating to the issue, management, control and enforcement of those authorisations, to the extent that the combined revenue received by that Member State by way of such a fee does not exceed all of those administrative costs, which is a matter for the national court to ascertain.

---

(1)  OJ C 246, 11.9.2010.

1

---
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 121 (Friday, June 22, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33598-33599]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-15717]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

RIN: 3245-AE72


Small Business Innovation Research Program Policy Directive

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Notice of proposed policy directive; Notice of reopening of the 
comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The proposed rule proposes revisions to the Small Business 
Innovation Research (SBIR) Program Policy Directive. The revised 
proposed policy directive reflects recently enacted statutory 
requirements. It is proposed to provide guidance to participating 
Federal agencies for the general conduct of the SBIR Program. The 
notice of proposed policy directive was published on May 18, 2001, 66 
FR 27721. The comment period closed on June 18, 2001. We are reopening 
the comment period because the Small Business Administration believes 
that affected businesses need more time to adequately respond.

DATES: The comment period for the proposed policy directive published 
on May 18, 2001 (66 FR 27721) is reopened through July 23, 2001.

[[Page 33599]]


ADDRESSES: Address all comments to Maurice Swinton, Assistant 
Administrator for Technology, Office of Technology, Office of Policy, 
Planning, and Liaison, Office of Government Contracting/Business 
Development, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20416 or via e-mail to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#8afeefe9e2e4e5e6e5edf3caf9e8eba4ede5fc"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a5d1c0c6cdcbcac9cac2dce5d6c7c48bc2cad3">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: June 14, 2001.
William A. Fisher,
Acting Associate Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 01-15717 Filed 6-21-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-U


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>