alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2012032EN.01000601.xml

| 4.2.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 32/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 32/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 8 December 2011 — France Télécom v European Commission, French Republic

(Case C-81/10 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - State aid - France Télécom’s business tax regime - Concept of ‘aid’ - Legitimate expectations - Limitation period - Obligation to state reasons - Principle of legal certainty)

2012/C 32/09

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellant: France Télécom SA (represented by: S. Hautbourg, L. Olza Moreno and L. Godfroid, avocats)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: E. Gippini Fournier and D. Grespan, acting as Agents), French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and J. Gstalter, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgments of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 30 November 2009 in Joined Cases T-427/04 and T-17/05 France and France Télécom v Commission by which the Court dismissed the actions brought by the French Republic and the appellant for annulment of Commission Decision 2005/709/EC of 2 August 2004 on the State aid implemented by France (OJ 2005 L 269, p. 30) — Misapplication of the concepts of ‘State aid’ and ‘advantage’ in connection with France Télécom’s business tax regime for the period 1994 to 2002 — Breach of the principle of legitimate expectations — Limitation period for State aid — Obligation to state reasons and breach of the principle of legal certainty

France and France Télécom

Commission

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders France Télécom SA to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders France Télécom SA to pay the costs;

| 3. | Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 148, 5.6.2010.

1

---
Robin TOSTE, et vir, petitioners, v. EL DORADO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, et al.

No. 17-1359.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 21, 2018.

*2030Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 99.1

                             CERTIFICATE 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 American Media Operations, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 24, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David
J. Pecker, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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.


/s/ David J. Pecker


David J. Pecker
Chief Executive Officer
August 8, 2002
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          44,477
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           7,940
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    494,514
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                      1,533,723
<ALLOWANCE>                                     24,414
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,180,331
<DEPOSITS>                                   1,471,956
<SHORT-TERM>                                   292,640
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             23,418
<LONG-TERM>                                    222,570
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        19,110
<OTHER-SE>                                     150,637
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               2,180,331
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 94,785
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               28,905
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   641
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               124,331
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              47,154
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              68,774
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           55,557
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   12,520
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 515
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 48,918
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,918
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       7,918
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,869
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.40
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.40
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.67
<LOANS-NON>                                     11,045
<LOANS-PAST>                                     8,735
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   476
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  3,525
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                15,410
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    3,926
<RECOVERIES>                                       410
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               24,414
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            24,414
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
```
  
 
VIX FUTURES - CBOE FUTURES EXCHANGE                                  Code-1170E1
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 11/09/09          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
($1000 X INDEX)                                      OPEN INTEREST:       59,863
COMMITMENTS
   4,356   22,757    9,373   39,445   21,646   53,174   53,776    6,689    6,087

CHANGES FROM 11/03/09 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:      3,927)
     188     -130    1,338    3,643    4,170    5,169    5,378   -1,242   -1,451

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
     7.3     38.0     15.7     65.9     36.2     88.8     89.8     11.2     10.2

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:       33)
       7       13       14       12        8       29       26
```

----

Updated November 13, 2009
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of Chief Executive 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Borland Software Corporation
(the Company) for the period ended June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Tod Nielsen, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:



| | (1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the Company at the end of the period covered by the Report and results
of operations of the Company for the period covered by the Report.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ TOD NIELSEN        
|Tod Nielsen            
|Chief Executive Officer
|                       
|August 14, 2006        

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and
shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. This certification is not to be incorporated by reference
into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Report), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in
such filing.
Quentin Marcus TRUEHILL v. FLORIDA.

Terence Oliver v. Florida.

Nos. 16-9448 17-5083.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 16, 2017.

The petitions for writs of certiorari are denied.

Justice BREYER, dissenting from denial of certiorari.

In part for the reasons set forth in my opinion in *Hurst v. Florida* , 577 U.S. ----, ----, 136 S.Ct. 616, 193 L.Ed.2d 504 (2016) (concurring opinion in judgment), I would vacate and remand for the Florida Supreme Court to address the Eighth Amendment issue in these cases. I therefore join the dissenting opinion of Justice SOTOMAYOR in full.

Justice SOTOMAYOR, with whom Justice GINSBURG and Justice BREYER join, dissenting from the denial of certiorari.

At least twice now, capital defendants in Florida have raised an important Eighth Amendment challenge to their death sentences that the Florida Supreme Court has failed to address. Specifically, those capital defendants, petitioners here, argue that the jury instructions in their cases impermissibly diminished the jurors' sense of responsibility as to the ultimate determination of death by repeatedly emphasizing that their verdict was merely advisory. "This Court has always premised its capital punishment decisions on the assumption that a capital sentencing jury recognizes the gravity of its task," and we have thus found unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment comments that "minimize the jury's sense of responsibility for *4determining the appropriateness of death." *Caldwell v. Mississippi* , 472 U.S. 320, 341, 105 S.Ct. 2633, 86 L.Ed.2d 231 (1985).

Although the Florida Supreme Court has rejected a *Caldwell* challenge to its jury instructions in capital cases in the past, it did so in the context of its prior sentencing scheme, where "the court [was] the final decision-maker and the sentencer-not the jury." *Combs v. State* , 525 So.2d 853, 857 (1988). In *Hurst v. Florida* , 577 U.S. ----, ----, 136 S.Ct. 616, 624, 193 L.Ed.2d 504 (2016), however, we held that process, "which required the judge alone to find the existence of an aggravating circumstance," to be unconstitutional.

With the rationale underlying its previous rejection of the *Caldwell* challenge now undermined by this Court in *Hurst* , petitioners ask that the Florida Supreme Court revisit the question. The Florida Supreme Court, how-ever, did not address that Eighth Amendment challenge.

This Court has not in the past hesitated to vacate and remand a case when a court has failed to address an important question that was raised below. See, *e.g.,**Beer v. United States* , 564 U.S. 1050, 131 S.Ct. 2865, 180 L.Ed.2d 909 (2011) (remanding for consideration of unaddressed preclusion claim); *Youngblood v. West Virginia* , 547 U.S. 867, 126 S.Ct. 2188, 165 L.Ed.2d 269 (2006) (*per curiam* ) (remanding for consideration of unaddressed claim under *Brady v. Maryland* , 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963) ). Because petitioners here raised a potentially meritorious Eighth Amendment challenge to their death sentences, and because the stakes in capital cases are too high to ignore such constitutional challenges, I dissent from the Court's refusal to correct that error.
Trudy STANFORD, petitioner, v. Linda BROWNE, et al.

No. 17-970.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 18, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Nevada denied.
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 12.1


                       RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES

We have computed the ratios of earnings to fixed charges and preferred
distributions by dividing income from continuing operations, plus fixed charges,
plus amortization of capitalized interest, plus distributed income of equity
investees, less earnings of equity investees, less interest capitalized, by
fixed charges. Fixed charges consist of interest costs, whether expensed or
capitalized, the interest component of rental expense and amortization of debt
premiums, discounts and issuance costs and preferred distributions.

The ratio of earnings to fixed charges was 1.64X for the six months ended June
30, 2002 and .92X for the year ended December 31, 2001, compared to 1.55X for
the year ended December 31, 2000 and compared to 1.88X for the year ended
December 31, 1999. The increase for the six months ended June 30, 2002 compared
to year ended December 31, 2001 is primarily due to the incurrence of severance
and merger expenses in 2001, as discussed in the "Results of Operations" above.
Wade ROBERTSON, petitioner, v. Rise Jones PICHON, Judge, Santa Clara Superior Court, California, et al.

No. 17-5516.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Release #3966-96 (4-96-CV-70005)

For Release:November 14, 1996

**CFTC REACHES SETTLEMENT WITH IOWA STATE BANK & TRUST OF    FAIRFIELD, IOWA, WHICH WAS NAMED AS A RELIEF DEFENDANT IN A CFTC ANTI-FRAUD    ACTION FILED IN JANUARY 1996**

**Bank Agrees to Pay Restitution of About $565,000 to Alleged**

**Defrauded Investors in a Commodity Pool Operated by Mark S.    Shaner**

WASHINGTON -- The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) announced    today that it has reached a settlement on November 7, 1996, with **Iowa    State Bank and Trust Company** of Fairfield, Iowa, stemming from a    four-count injunctive complaint filed in January, 1996, in the U.S.    District Court for the Southern District of Iowa in Des Moines.

The complaint alleges that **Mark S. Shaner** and **Shaner Trading    Partners, Inc.**, a commodity pool, both of Fairfield, Iowa, defrauded    commodity pool participants, and the complaint names the Iowa State Bank    and Trust Company and Jane F. Shaner as relief defendants.

Under terms of the settlement, Iowa State Bank and Trust has agreed to    pay about $565,000 in restitution to investors in a commodity pool. The    CFTC's litigation against the other defendants in the action is still    pending.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that Shaner Fund Limited    Partnership, a commodity pool organized in early 1994, purchased a    certificate of deposit from the bank with pool funds, and that Mark S.    Shaner later permitted the bank to use the proceeds of the certificate of    deposit to pay Shaner's personal and business debts to the bank. Both    Shaner and Shaner Trading Partners are general partners of Shaner Fund    Limited Partnership.

The complaint further alleges that the Iowa State Bank and Trust Company    was unjustly enriched when it accepted $521,804.85 in proceeds from the    certificate of deposit. In the settlement the bank agreed to pay the    investors that amount, plus approximately $44,000 in prejudgment    interest.

The complaint also alleges that Mark S. Shaner and Shaner Trading    Partners, Inc. violated the Commodity Exchange Act by cheating and    defrauding investors, engaging in commodity pool fraud, and converting pool    assets.

The court, on January 4, 1996, entered an ***ex parte***    restraining order freezing the assets of Shaner and Shaner Trading Partners    and prohibiting the defendants from destroying books and records and from    denying CFTC representatives access to such records. (See CFTC News    Release #3887-96, January 18, 1996.)

----
Amy J. McDANIEL, Individually and as Assignee of the Estate of Edward Murotani, Decedent, petitioner, v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY.

No. 16-1497.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
TMC FUEL INJECTION SYSTEM, LLC, petitioner, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY.

No. 17-234.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied.
Aaron Anthony VRH, petitioner, v. CALIFORNIA.

No. 17-8635.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 18, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, Fifth Appellate District denied.
In Re James R. YOUNG, petitioner.

No. 17-6060.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 16, 2017.

Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.
# L_2011058EN.01008101.xml

| 3.3.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 58/81 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.3.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 58/81

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE

No 123/2010

of 10 November 2010

amending Annex XIII (Transport) 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 XIII to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 108/2010 of 1 October 2010 (1). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Annex XIII to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 108/2010 of 1 October 2010 (1).

| (2) | Commission Regulation (EU) No 285/2010 of 6 April 2010 amending Regulation (EC) No 785/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council on insurance requirements for air carriers and aircraft operators (2) is to be incorporated into the Agreement, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Commission Regulation (EU) No 285/2010 of 6 April 2010 amending Regulation (EC) No 785/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council on insurance requirements for air carriers and aircraft operators (2) is to be incorporated into the Agreement,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The following shall be added in point 66l (Regulation (EC) No 785/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council) of Annex XIII to the Agreement:

‘, as amended by:

| — | 32010 R 0285: Commission Regulation (EU) No 285/2010 of 6 April 2010 (OJ L 87, 7.4.2010, p. 19).’ |
| --- | --- |

—

32010 R 0285: Commission Regulation (EU) No 285/2010 of 6 April 2010 (OJ L 87, 7.4.2010, p. 19).’

Article 2

The text of Regulation (EU) No 285/2010 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 11 November 2010, provided that all the notifications pursuant to 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, 10 November 2010.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

Stefán Haukur JÓHANNESSON

---

(1)  
  OJ L 332, 16.12.2010, p. 58.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 87, 7.4.2010, p. 19.

2

(*1)  Constitutional requirements indicated.

*1

---
#### Thomas L. Carter and J. Brooke Carter, *Plaintiffs in*Error, v. H. A. Stahl Florida Properties Company, a corporation, *Defendant in Error.*

Division B.

Decision filed February 15, 1929.

*George F.*Parker, for Plaintiffs in Error;

*Callaway <& Bwrrwss,*for Defendant in Error.

Per Curiam.

This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the judgment herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the Court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that there is no error in the said judgment; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and adjudged by the Court that the said judgment of the circuit court be,' and the same is hereby affirmed.

Affirmed.

Whitfield, P. J., and Buford, J., and Giblin, Circuit Judge, concur.
# L_2005161EN.01003301.xml

| 23.6.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 161/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.6.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 161/33

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE

No 14/2005

of 8 February 2005

amending Annex XIII (Transport) 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 XIII to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 179/2004 of 9 December 2004 (1). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Annex XIII to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 179/2004 of 9 December 2004 (1).

| (2) | Regulation (EC) No 725/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on enhancing ship and port facility security (2), is to be incorporated into the Agreement, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Regulation (EC) No 725/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on enhancing ship and port facility security (2), is to be incorporated into the Agreement,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The following point shall be inserted after point 56ba (Commission Directive 96/40/EC) of Annex XIII to the Agreement:

| | ‘56bb. 32004 R 0725: Regulation (EC) No 725/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on enhancing ship and port facility security (OJ L 129, 29.4.2004, p. 6).’ |
| --- | --- |

‘56bb. 32004 R 0725: Regulation (EC) No 725/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on enhancing ship and port facility security (OJ L 129, 29.4.2004, p. 6).’







  Article 2

The texts of Regulation (EC) No 725/2004 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 February 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 February 2005.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

Richard WRIGHT

---

(1)  
  OJ L 133, 26.5.2005, p. 37.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 129, 29.4.2004, p. 6.

2

(*1)  Constitutional requirements indicated.

*1

---
Eddie WAGLE, petitioner, v. Connie HORTON, Acting Warden.

No. 17-5411.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 10, 2017.

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