alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2011160EN.01002203.xml

| 28.5.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 160/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.5.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 160/22

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 18 March 2011 — Westfälisch-Lippischer Sparkassen- und Giroverband v Commission

(Case T-457/09 R)

(Interim procedure - Authorisation of State aid for the restructuring of a bank - Abandonment of a branch as a compensatory indemnity - Urgency - Weighing up of the interests)

2011/C 160/36

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Westfälisch-Lippischer Sparkassen- und Giroverband (Münster, Germany) (represented by: A. Rosenfeld and I. Liebach, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, B. Martenczuk and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for stay of execution of Article 2(1), read in conjunction with points 5.4, 5.7 and 6.7 in the Annex to Commission Decision C(2009) 3900 final corr. of 12 May 2009, in Case C-43/2008 (ex N 390/2008) concerning restructuring aid that the German authorities intend to implement for WestLB AG, reading that decision in conjunction with Commission Decision C(2010) 9525 final of 21 December 2010 in State aid Cases MC 8/2009 and C-43/2009 — Germany — WestLB, to the extent that it follows therefrom that new operations by the Westdeutsche Immobilien Bank AG must be terminated after 15 February 2011.

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. | The order of 31 January 2011 in Case T-457/09 R Westfälisch-Lippischer Sparkassen- und Giroverband v Commission is rescinded. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The order of 31 January 2011 in Case T-457/09 R Westfälisch-Lippischer Sparkassen- und Giroverband v Commission is rescinded.

| 3. | The applications to intervene made by Westdeutsche Immobilien Bank AG, Landschaftsverband Westfalen-Lippe, Landschaftsverband Rheinland, WestLB, the Land of Rhineland-North Westphalia and Rheinischer Sparkassen- und Giroverband have become devoid of purpose. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The applications to intervene made by Westdeutsche Immobilien Bank AG, Landschaftsverband Westfalen-Lippe, Landschaftsverband Rheinland, WestLB, the Land of Rhineland-North Westphalia and Rheinischer Sparkassen- und Giroverband have become devoid of purpose.

| 4. | Costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Costs are reserved.

---
Jamison Ross ELLIS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-8101.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 16, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
# L_2005306EN.01004301.xml

| 24.11.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 306/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.11.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 306/43

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE

No 106/2005

of 8 July 2005

amending Annex XIV (Competition) to the EEA Agreement

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, as amended by the Protocol adjusting the Agreement on the European Economic Area, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Agreement’, and in particular Article 98 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Annex XIV to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 43/2005 of 11 March 2005 (1). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Annex XIV to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 43/2005 of 11 March 2005 (1).

| (2) | Commission Regulation (EC) No 611/2005 of 20 April 2005 amending Regulation (EC) No 823/2000 on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty to certain categories of agreements, decisions and concerted practices between liner shipping companies (consortia) (2), as corrected by OJ L 103, 22.4.2005, p. 41, is to be incorporated into the Agreement, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 611/2005 of 20 April 2005 amending Regulation (EC) No 823/2000 on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty to certain categories of agreements, decisions and concerted practices between liner shipping companies (consortia) (2), as corrected by OJ L 103, 22.4.2005, p. 41, is to be incorporated into the Agreement,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The following indent shall be added in point 11c (Commission Regulation (EC) No 823/2000) of Annex XIV to the Agreement:

| ‘— | 32005 R 0611: Commission Regulation (EC) No 611/2005 of 20 April 2005 (OJ L 101, 21.4.2005, p. 10), as corrected by OJ L 103, 22.4.2005, p. 41.’ |
| --- | --- |

‘—

32005 R 0611: Commission Regulation (EC) No 611/2005 of 20 April 2005 (OJ L 101, 21.4.2005, p. 10), as corrected by OJ L 103, 22.4.2005, p. 41.’

Article 2

The text of Regulation (EC) No 611/2005, as corrected by OJ L 103, 22.4.2005, p. 41, in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, to be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be authentic.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on 9 July 2005, provided that all the notifications under Article 103(1) of the Agreement have been made to the EEA Joint Committee (*1).

Article 4

This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 8 July 2005.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

HSH Prinz Nikolaus von LIECHTENSTEIN

---

(1)  
  OJ L 198, 28.7.2005, p. 45.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 101, 21.4.2005, p. 10.

2

(*1)  No constitutional requirements indicated.

*1

---
Kim Wade DILLON, petitioner, v. Dennis DAUGAARD, Governor of South Dakota, et al.

No. 17-7527.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 14, 2018.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Ivan JOHNSON, petitioner, v. Karen JAIMET, Warden.

No. 16-9620.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**




**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 Annual Report of Skystar Bio-Pharmaceutical Company (“the Company”)
      on Form 10-KSB
      for the period ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
      Commission on the date hereof (“the Report”),
      I, Weibing Lu,
      Chief Executive Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
      pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my
      knowledge:





(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.





/s/ Weibing
              LuWeibing
              LuChief
                Executive Officer




Dated:
      May 18, 2007
Gary JUENGAIN, petitioner, v. LOUISIANA, et al.

No. 17-6033.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 20, 2018.

Petition for rehearing denied.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 69 (Monday, April 11, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 21259]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-07620]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Docket No. FAA-2022-0345]


Airport Improvement Program (AIP) Grant Assurances; Errata Notice 
Extending Comment Date

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of 
Transportation.

    On April 4, 2022, the FAA issued a notice in the above-captioned 
matter. The notice indicated that the FAA would accept comments 
concerning the proposed modified grant assurances until ``April 12, 
2022.'' This notice extends the comment due date to April 20, 2022.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 5, 2022.
Robert A. Hawks,
Deputy Director, Office of Airport Planning and Programming.
[FR Doc. 2022-07620 Filed 4-8-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
# C_2011238EN.01001602.xml

| 13.8.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 238/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.8.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 238/16

---

Order of the General Court of 27 June 2011 — Amecke Fruchtsaft v OHIM — Uhse (69 Sex up)

(Case T-343/09) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate)

2011/C 238/25

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Amecke Fruchtsaft GmbH & Co. KG (Menden, Germany) (represented by: R. Kaase and J.-C. Plate, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: S. Schäffner and subsequently S. Schäffner and B. Schmidt, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Beate Uhse Einzelhandels GmbH (Flensburg, Germany) (represented by: W. Berlit, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 June 2009 (Case R 1728/2008-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Beate Uhse Einzelhandels GmbH and Amecke Fruchtsaft GmbH & Co. KG.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate.

| 2. | The applicant shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicant shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 267, 7.11.2009.

1

---
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.                  

###### Small Business Administration

          - [Applicant No. 99000418]

Notice is hereby given that Bluestem Capital Partners III Limited Partnership ( “Bluestem III” ), 122 S Phillips Ave., Suite 300, Sioux Falls, South Dakota, 57104, an applicant for a Federal License under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended (“the Act”), in connection with the financing of a small concern, has sought an exemption under section 312 of the Act and Section 107.730, Financings which Constitute Conflicts of Interest of the Small Business Administration (“SBA”) rules and regulations (13 CFR 107.730 (2000)). Bluestem III proposes to provide equity financing to Hat World Corporation, 8142 Woodland Drive, Indianapolis, IN 46078. The financing is contemplated for the purpose of providing capital to Hat World Corporation to fund the acquisition of various assets from the Lids' bankruptcy trustee.

The financing is brought within the purview of § 107.730(a)(1) of the SBA Regulations because Bluestem Capital Partners I, LLC and Bluestem Capital Partners II Limited Partnership, both Associates of Bluestem III, each currently own greater than 10 percent of Hat World Corporation, and therefore, Hat World Corporation is considered an Associate of Bluestem III as defined in § 107.50 of the SBA Regulations.

Notice is hereby given that any interested person may submit written comments on the transaction to the Associate Administrator for Investment, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street, SW., Washington, DC 20416.

Dated: June 12, 2001.

Harry Haskins,

Acting Associate Administrator for Investment.

[FR Doc. 01-15643  Filed 6-20-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF JUNE 29, 1998 AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF
INCOME FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED JUNE 29, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS ON FORM 10-Q
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-28-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-29-1998
<CASH>                                       6,329,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                7,318,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   845,000
<INVENTORY>                                  5,881,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            21,233,000
<PP&E>                                     219,971,000
<DEPRECIATION>                             127,775,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             155,991,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       54,832,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,000
<OTHER-SE>                               (105,042,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               155,991,000
<SALES>                                    110,872,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           110,872,000
<CGS>                                       35,263,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               61,129,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,503,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           4,939,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                892,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                    73,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            819,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (3,000)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   816,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
II-Oll91

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Allan King <allanpaulking@yahoo.com>

Wednesday, December 1, 2010 5:49 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.

Allan King

4109 Robinson St

Duluth, MN 55804
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-13-00333-CV

JON CHRISTOPHER KRAATZ

v.

C.P.Z.

On Appeal from the

117th District Court of Nueces County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 2013-FAM-2191-B

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the appeal should be DISMISSED. The Court orders the appeal 

DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion. Costs of the appeal are adjudged against 

appellant.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

July 31, 2014
# C_2011055EN.01001602.xml

| 19.2.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 55/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.2.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 55/16

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 16 December 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands

(Case C-233/10) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2007/44/EC - Prudential assessment of acquisitions and increase of holdings in the financial sector - Procedural rules and evaluation criteria)

2011/C 55/29

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Nijenhis and H. te Winkel, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: C. Wissels, Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2007/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 amending Council Directive 92/49/EEC and Directives 2002/83/EC, 2004/39/EC, 2005/68/EC and 2006/48/EC as regards procedural rules and evaluation criteria for the prudential assessment of acquisitions and increase of holdings in the financial sector (OJ 2007 L 247, p. 1)

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2007/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 amending Council Directive 92/49/EEC and Directives 2002/83/EC, 2004/39/EC, 2005/68/EC and 2006/48/EC as regards procedural rules and evaluation criteria for the prudential assessment of acquisitions and increase of holdings in the financial sector, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2007/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 amending Council Directive 92/49/EEC and Directives 2002/83/EC, 2004/39/EC, 2005/68/EC and 2006/48/EC as regards procedural rules and evaluation criteria for the prudential assessment of acquisitions and increase of holdings in the financial sector, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

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

2.

Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 195, 17.07.2010.

1

---
EXHIBIT 99.2





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 PW Eagle, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Roger R. Robb, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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 results of operations of the Company.





Dated:    November 8, 2002





/s/    ROGER R. ROBBRoger R. RobbChief Financial Officer
# C_2009220EN.01003401.xml

| 12.9.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 220/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.9.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 220/34

---

Action brought on 2 July 2009 — AECOPS v Commission

(Case T-257/09)

2009/C 220/72

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Associação de Empresas de Construção, Obras Públicas e Serviços (Aecops) (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: J.L. da Cruz Vilaça and L. Pinto Monteiro, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Commission of the European Communities of 22 June 2005 in respect of File 89 0979 P3, reducing the aid granted by Decision C(89) 0570 of 22 March 1989 to PTE 426 070 and requiring the reimbursement of the amount of PTE 1 591 128; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Commission of the European Communities of 22 June 2005 in respect of File 89 0979 P3, reducing the aid granted by Decision C(89) 0570 of 22 March 1989 to PTE 426 070 and requiring the reimbursement of the amount of PTE 1 591 128;

| — | Order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Infringement of the right to a prior hearing: the applicant was not given the opportunity to comment before a definitive decision to reduce the financial assistance was adopted, which constitutes the breach of an essential procedural requirement the disregard of which renders such a decision void.

Infringement of the principal of legal certainty through limitation and excessive delay in adopting a decision.

Breach of the duty to state reasons: the contested decision fails to set out, even summarily, the reasons for reducing the assistance.

---