alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
----

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 29 April 2004

in Joined Cases T-236/01, T-239/01, T-244/01 to T-246/01, T-251/01 and T-252/01: Tokai Carbon Co. Ltd and Others v Commission of the European Communities (1)

(Competition - Appeal - Cartel - Graphite electrodes market - Price-fixing and market-sharing - Calculation of fines - Concurrent sanctions - Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Applicability - Gravity and duration of the infringement - Aggravating circumstances - Attenuating circumstances - Ability to pay - Cooperation during the administrative procedure - Arrangements for payment)

(2004/C 251/24)

Language of the case: German and English

In Joined Cases T-236/01, T-239/01, T-244/01 to T-246/01, T-251/01 and T-252/01: Tokai Carbon Co. Ltd, established in Tokyo (Japan), represented initially by G. Van Gerven, T. Franchoo and M. De Grave and, subsequently, by G. Van Gerven and T. Franchoo, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, SGL Carbon AG, established in Wiesbaden (Germany), represented by M. Klusmann, F. Wiemer and C. Canenbley, lawyers, Nippon Carbon Co. Ltd, established in Tokyo (Japan), represented by H. Gilliams, lawyer, Showa Denko KK, established in Tokyo (Japan), represented by M. Dolmans and P. Werdmuller, lawyers, and J. Temple Lang, Solicitor, GrafTech International Ltd, formerly UCAR International Inc., established in Wilmington, Delaware (United States), represented by K. Lasok QC and B. Hartnett, Barrister, BL, with an address for service in Luxembourg, SEC Corp., established in Amagasaki, Hyogo (Japan), represented by K. Platteau, lawyer, The Carbide/Graphite Group, Inc., established in Pittsburgh (United States), represented initially by M. Seimetz and J. Brücher and, subsequently, by P. Grund, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Communities, represented by W. Mölls and P. Hellström, and, in Case T-246/01, by W. Wils, acting as Agents, with, in Case T-239/01, H.-J. Freund, lawyer, and, in Cases T-244/01, T-246/01, T-251/01 and T-252/01, J. Flynn and C. Kilroy, Barristers, with an address for service in Luxembourg — applications for annulment, in whole or in part, of Commission Decision 2002/271/EC of 18 July 2001 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Case COMP/E-1/36.490 — Graphite electrodes (OJ 2002 L 100, p. 1) — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of N.J. Forwood, President, J. Pirrung and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 April 2004, in which it:

----

(1)OJ C 17, 19.1.2002.

----
Exhibit 31.1**CERTIFICATION FOR QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-QSB**I, R.H. Dillon, certify that:1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-QSB of Diamond Hill Investment Group, Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and15d-14) for the registrant and have:a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report out conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andc) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter(the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer’sinternal control over financial reporting; and5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer’sauditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrols over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the smallbusiness issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting.        Date: August 12, 2005 /s/ R. H. Dillon   R.H. Dillon   Chief Executive Officer   
23
```
  
 
WHEAT - KANSAS CITY BOARD OF TRADE                                   Code-001612
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 05/04/10          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 5,000 BUSHELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:      155,564
COMMITMENTS
  39,585   25,691   29,521   70,760   74,461  139,866  129,673   15,698   25,892

CHANGES FROM 04/27/10 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:      1,577)
   1,926     -845      895     -856    2,864    1,966    2,914     -389   -1,337

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
    25.4     16.5     19.0     45.5     47.9     89.9     83.4     10.1     16.6

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      172)
      42       32       47       52       67      123      130
```

----

Updated May 7, 2010
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 Quarterly Report of Indevus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2005 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Glenn L. Cooper, 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 to the best of 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.



|    |  |                        
|--- |  | -----------------------
|By: |  | /s/ Glenn L. Cooper    
|    |  | Chief Executive Officer
|    | 
|    |  | August 9, 2005
# United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Cir cui t Chic ago, Il l i noi s 60 60 4 July 7, 2015 Before RICHARD A. POS NER, Circ uit Judge MICHAEL S . KANNE, Circ uit Judge ILANA DIAM OND ROVNER, Circ uit Judge

No. 14-1889 MOHAM ED ABDUL MATHIN, Appeal from the United Stat es Di stric t Co urt

Plaintiff-Appellant, for t he Nort hern Di stric t of Illinoi s, Eastern Di vis i on

v. No. 1:11-cv-05157 JOHN F. KERRY, Se cretar y of S tate , Joan Hum phrey Lefko w, Judge

Defen dant-Appellee.

O R D E R On consi derat i on of the Petiti on Fo r Rehear ing, fi led by Plainti ff- Appellant on June 22, 2015, an d all memb ers of the o riginal panel having vo ted to DENY the Peti tion For Rehearing, IT IS HEREBY O RDERED that the Petiti on Fo r Rehear ing i s DE NIED. IT IS F URTHER ORDERED that the o pini on i ssu ed i n the above-entitled case on April 7, 2015, i s hereby amended as f ollows:Appeal No. 14-1889 Page 2 On page 2, t he last sentence of the fi rst full paragr aph, wh i ch reads: “Becaus e the Gov ernment has a < stro ng and legiti mate i ntere st i n ensu ring that only qualifi ed persons are g ranted ci tizens hi p,’ the S upreme Courthas recogni zed that < doubts should b e resolv ed i n favor of the United Stat es.’ Berenyi v. District Di rector, Immigration and Naturaliza tion Servic e, 385 U.S. 630, 637 (1967); Bustamante-Ba rrera v. Gonza lez , 447 U.S. 388, 394-95 (5th Ci r. 2006)” i s deleted. On page 4, in the 3 full p arag raph, after the second r d sentence whi ch b egins “The Illinoi s Department of Publ i c Health ...,” a foot note is ad ded whi ch reads: “In the course of the subs equent i nvestigati on, the S tate Department was i nformed that t he Illi noi s Bureau of Vi tal St atis tic s had flagged thatdelayed bi rth certifi cate as fraudul ent.”
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

 

I, Ash Huzenlaub, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Emergisoft Holding, Inc.; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report; 

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have: 

 

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared; 

 

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the “Evaluation Date”); and

 

c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions aboutthe effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date; 

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (orpersons performing the equivalent function): 

 

a) allsignificant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant’s auditors anymaterial weaknesses in internal controls; and 

 

b) any fraud,whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls; and 

 

6. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or inother factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses. 

 

Date: August 13, 2003 

 

/s/ Ash Huzenlaub

Ash Huzenlaub 

Chairman of the Board, President 

and Chief Executive Officer
Ashby COLEMAN, petitioner, v. VIRGINIA.

No. 17-546.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 20, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Virginia denied.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 20
- 0042 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. AUTREE ANIEL PEDERSEN,

Defendant and Appellant
.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including September 3 0 , 20 20 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

August 20 2020

08/20/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0042
```
 
 
CRUDE OIL, LIGHT SWEET - ICE FUTURES EUROPE                          Code-067411
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 09/14/10          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 1,000 BARRELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:      509,381
COMMITMENTS
  52,167   20,895   98,257  345,641  377,477  496,065  496,629   13,316   12,752

CHANGES FROM 09/07/10 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:        738)
  -8,665   -3,885   17,691   -2,872   -8,225    6,154    5,580   -5,416   -4,842

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
    10.2      4.1     19.3     67.9     74.1     97.4     97.5      2.6      2.5

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      123)
      29       19       39       64       72      113      112
```

----

Updated September 17, 2010
Larry Dean DUSENBERY, petitioner, v. Ronnie R. HOLT, Warden.

No. 18-5781.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 18, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
**Exhibit 10.27**

**DESCRIPTION OF CERTAIN COMPENSATORY ARRANGEMENTS**

**BETWEEN REGISTRANT AND EXECUTIVEOFFICERS**

Varian, Inc. (“the Company”) leases or purchases an automobile for the each of its executive officers, subjectto certain lease or purchase “cap” limitations that vary by executive officer. The Company reimburses the executive officer for all fuel, maintenance and repairs costs for the leased automobile, pays all registration fees, taxes and othercosts relating to the automobile, and insures the automobile under its insurance programs. The Company also reimburses the executive officer (by way of a “gross-up” payment) for taxes on income that is imputed to the executive officer forthe personal use of the automobile.
James HAWKINS, petitioner, v. TENNESSEE.

No. 17-5705.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 30, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, Western Division denied.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JAMES L. SNIDER,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 v.

CURRY, Warden,

 Respondent - Appellee.

No. 08-15805

D.C. No. 3:07-CV-04311-MHP

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Marilyn H. Patel, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 15, 2011** 

Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner James L. Snider appeals pro se from the district

court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition challenging the

Board’s 2006 decision denying him parole. We dismiss.

FILED

JUL 7 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
08-15805

Snider contends that the California Penal Code § 3041 creates a federally

protected liberty interest in parole and that the Board’s failure to set a parole date

at his 2006 hearing violated his federal constitutional rights. Snider also contends

that the Board violated his rights under the Equal Protection Clause. 

After briefing was completed in this case, this court held that a certificate of 

appealability is required to challenge the denial of parole. See Hayward 

v. Marshall, 603 F.3d 546, 554-55 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc). Because Snider has

not has made a substantial showing of the denial of a federal constitutional right,

we decline to certify his claims. See Swarthout v. Cooke, 131 S. Ct. 859, 862-63

(2011) (per curiam); 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). 

Snider’s motion for appointment of counsel is denied. 

DISMISSED.
David KAVANDI, petitioner, v. TIME WARNER CABLE, INC., et al.

No. 18-6003.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 19, 2019.

Petition for rehearing denied.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
EXHIBIT 21.1

SUBSIDIARIES CONTROLLED BY REGISTRANT  As of December 31, 2007

ValueClick, Inc. Subsidiary Listing

Company

Percentage OwnershipBe Free, Inc. (Delaware)

100
%ClickAgents, Inc. (Delaware)

100
%Commission Junction, Inc. (Delaware)

100
%E-Babylon, Inc. (California)

100
%Fastclick, Inc. (Delaware)

100
%HiSpeed Media, Inc. (California)

100
%Mediaplex, Inc. (Delaware)

100
%Mediaplex Systems, Inc. (Kentucky)

100
%MeziMedia, Inc. (California)

100
%Search123.com Inc. (California)

100
%VC E-Commerce Solutions, Inc. (California)

100
%Web Clients, Inc. (Delaware)

100
%Web Marketing Holdings, Inc. (Delaware)

100
%Be Free Sarl (France)

100
%Be Free Germany GmbH (Germany)

100
%Be Free UK, Ltd. (United Kingdom)

100
%Commission Junction UK Ltd. (United Kingdom)

100
%Pricerunner AB (Sweden)

100
%Pricerunner Sweden AB (Sweden)

100
%Pricerunner Ltd. (United Kingdom)

100
%Pricerunner SAS (France)

100
%ValueClick Europe Ltd. (United Kingdom)

100
%ValueClick Sarl (France)

100
%ValueClick GmbH (Germany)

100
%Shopping.net (United Kingdom)

100
%


---



QuickLinks
**Exhibit 15**

**ACCOUNTANTS’ ACKNOWLEDGEMENT**

We acknowledge the incorporation by reference in the March 23, 1995 and theApril 19, 2006, Registration Statements on Form S-8 of NB&T Financial Group, Inc. (formerly known as InterCounty Bancshares, Inc.) of our report dated August 1, 2007 included with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter endedJune 30, 2007. Pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the Securities Act of 1933, this report should not be considered part of the registration statement prepared or certified within the meaning of Section 7 and 11 of the Act. 

 

August 9, 2007
Brandon WASHINGTON, petitioner, v. ALABAMA.

No. 18-742.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 25, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama denied.
# Official Journal L 165/2010

| | ISSN 1725-2555
  doi:10.3000/17252555.L_2010.165.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 165 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 5330 June 2010 |

ISSN 1725-2555

doi:10.3000/17252555.L_2010.165.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 165

English edition

Legislation

Volume 5330 June 2010

---

| Contents | | I   Legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | DIRECTIVES |
| | * | Directive 2010/35/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 June 2010 on transportable pressure equipment and repealing Council Directives 76/767/EEC, 84/525/EEC, 84/526/EEC, 84/527/EEC and 1999/36/EC (1) | 1 |

Contents

I   Legislative acts

page

DIRECTIVES

*

Directive 2010/35/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 June 2010 on transportable pressure equipment and repealing Council Directives 76/767/EEC, 84/525/EEC, 84/526/EEC, 84/527/EEC and 1999/36/EC (1)

1

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
# FILED

July 10, 1996 Cecil W. Crowson Ap pellate Cou rt Clerk IN THE COURT OF AP PEALS OF

TENNESSEE MIDDLE SECT ION AT NASHV ILLE

RAY DEAN

BURGESS, ) ) Plaintiff /Appella nt, )

) ) Putnam Circ

uit VS. ) No. J-4736 ) ) Appeal No. ANTHONY S. HARLEY, ) 01-A-01-9502-CV-00045 ) Defend ant ) ) and ) ) PUTNAM COUNTY HIGHWAY ) DEPARTMENT and PUTNUM ) COUNTY, A

BODY POL

ITI C, )

) Defend ants/Appe

llees. )

SEPARAT E CONCURR ING OP INION
Concurring in the result reached, I respectfully a ssert my conviction that, when a Defendant moves for summary judgment the burden of producing evidenc e to support evidence of every

aspect of his case does not pass to the Plaintiff until Defendant has produce d or pointe d out evide nce to ne gative

every aspect o f the ca se. The burden shi fts to the Plainti ff only

to contra dict the e vidence offere d or pointe d out by Defend ant.

Of course, evidence that Plaintiff cannot prove one or more aspects of his case does shift the burden to Plaintiff to show how he can prove such aspects, but proof of suc h inability must come f

rom Plainti ff’s ad

missions or

equally substantive evidence. As sta ted in Byrd v. H all , (Tenn.1995), 847 SW2d, 213, “a conclusory assertion that the non-moving party has no e

vidence is clearly

insufficient.”

Respectfully submitted,

______________________________________ HENRY F. TODD PRESIDING

JUDGE, MIDDL

E SECTION
May 17, 2016

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

WESLEE INVESTMENTS LP, Appellant

NO. 14-16-00371-CV V.

APACHE CORPORATION, Appellee

________________________________

Today the Court heard appellant's motion to dismiss the appeal from the 

judgment signed by the court below on November 9, 2015. Having considered the 

motion and found it meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED.

We further order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by 

appellant, Weslee Investments LP.

We further order that mandate be issued immediately.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
Rick E. BROWN, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-9076.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
Emmanuel I. MEKOWULU, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-927.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 4, 2019.

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