alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2008022EN.01004002.xml

| 26.1.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 22/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 22/40

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 December 2007 — Sack v Commission

(Case T-66/05) (1)

1

(Civil service - Official - Action for annulment - Responsibility bonus - Duties of ‘Head of unit’ - Equal treatment - Duty to state reasons - Language provisions)

(2008/C 22/73)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Jörn Sack (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: U. Lehmann-Brauns and D. Mahlo, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Joris and H. Krämer, acting as Agents, and B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

Action for annulment of the decisions relating to the fixing of the applicant's monthly salary for the months of May 2004 to February 2005, application for a fresh calculation of that salary and action for annulment of the express decision to reject the applicant's claim, notified to him on 26 November 2004.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 106, 30.4.2005.

1

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

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

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         162,816
<SECURITIES>                                   114,973
<RECEIVABLES>                                  352,040
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               822,513
<PP&E>                                         426,653
<DEPRECIATION>                                 135,785
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,495,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          446,555
<BONDS>                                        160,613
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,142
<OTHER-SE>                                     850,458
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,373,818
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               359,705
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  321,188
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                18,517
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,414
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 16,586
<INCOME-TAX>                                    13,222
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,364
<DISCONTINUED>                                   5,250
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,614
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.08


</TABLE>
Loan
Agreement

    


    Party
A(Borrower):Harbin Humankind
Biology Technology Co., Limited

    


    Party
B(Lender):Xin
Sun

    ID Card
Number:23010219660523161X

    


    On the
basis of equality, voluntariness and negotiation, both Party A and Party B enter
into this agreement about the loan.

    


    
      I. Party
B loans USD 510,894 to Party A.

    

    II. Interest: No Interest.

    III. Life
of Loan: No fixed terms of repayment.

    IV. Date
and Method of Payments: Party A will make the repayments in cash according to
the operation of its company.

    V. Settlements
of Diputes: apply for arbitration in local arbitration committee.

    VI. This
contract is taken into effect since signing date. This contract is executed in
two copies with the same legal effect. Both parties hold one copy
respectively.

    


    
      	
              Party
      A(Seal):

            	
              Party
      B:

            
	 
      	
              /s/
      Xin Sun

            
	 
      	 
      
	
              Date:

            	
              Date:
      June 27, 2008
# C_2009006EN.01002102.xml

| 10.1.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.1.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/21

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 19 November 2008 — Greece v Commission

(Case T-404/05) (1)

1

(Cohesion Fund - Athens International Airport - Reduction of financial assistance - Principle of proportionality)

(2009/C 6/42)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: M. Tassopoulou, Agent, assisted by N. Korogiannakis and N. Keramidas, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Triantafyllou and A. Weimar, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2005) 3243 final of 1 September 2005 reducing the financial assistance granted under the Cohesion Fund for Project No 95/09/65/040 (new Athens International Airport at Spata) by Commission Decision C(96) 1356 final of 24 May 1996.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action.

| 2. | Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 22, 28.1.2006.

1

---
# C_2023329EN.01003602.xml

| 18.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/36

---

Action brought on 27 July 2023 — Stadtsparkasse Düsseldorf v SRB

(Case T-467/23)

(2023/C 329/53)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Stadtsparkasse Düsseldorf (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: F. Kruis and N. Bartmann, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 2 May 2023 on the calculation of the 2023 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/2023/23) together with annexes, at least in so far as it concerns the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 2 May 2023 on the calculation of the 2023 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/2023/23) together with annexes, at least in so far as it concerns the applicant;

| — | order the Single Resolution Board to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Single Resolution Board to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on eight pleas in law which are identical to those relied on in Case T-410/23, BAWAG PSK v SRB.

---
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 15, 2018

No. 04-18-00153-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF A.L.H. and G.F.H.

From the 45th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016PA01945

Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Associate Judge Presiding

ORDER

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the portion of the trial court’s order 

terminating Appellant Father A.H.’s parental rights is AFFIRMED. With respect to Appellant 

Mother R.C., her appeal is ABATED for appointment of new appellate counsel. The trial court is 

ORDERED to appoint new appellate counsel for Appellant Mother R.M.R. on or before August 

25, 2018. The trial court clerk is ORDERED to file a supplemental clerk’s record that includes the 

trial court’s order on or before September 4, 2018.

The motion to withdraw filed by Manuel C. Rodriguez, Jr. is GRANTED. The motion to 

withdraw filed by James B. Peplinski is GRANTED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED on August 15, 2018.

_____________________________

Karen Angelini, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 15th day of August, 2018.

_____________________________

Keith E. Hottle, Clerk of Court
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Interior

###### Geological Survey

# AGENCY:

Geological Survey.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting. 

# SUMMARY:

Pursuant to Public Act 106-503, the Scientific Earthquake Studies Advisory Committee (SESAC) will hold its eleventh meeting. The meeting location is the Courtyard Seattle Downtown /Lake Union, 925 Westlake Avenue North, Seattle, Washington 98109. The Committee is comprised of members from academia, industry, and State government. The Committee shall advise the Director of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) on matters relating to the USGS's participation in the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program.

The Committee will review the overall direction of the U.S. Geological Survey's Earthquake Hazards Program in the current and next fiscal years with particular focus on the Program's activities in the Pacific Northwest.

Meetings of the Scientific Earthquake Studies Advisory Committee are open to the public.

# DATES:

September 27, 2005, commencing at 9 a.m. and adjourning at 12 p.m. on September 29, 2005.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dr. David Applegate, U.S. Geological Survey, MS 905, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, Reston, Virginia 29192, (703) 648 6714.

Dated: September 12, 2005.

Linda Gundersen,

Acting Associate Director for Geology.

[FR Doc. 05-18517 Filed 9-16-05; 8:45am]

BILLING CODE 4310 Y7 M
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Alton Thomas Davis, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

September 9, 2010 

0830 

Order 

 

September 9, 2010 

139651 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 139651 

 COA: 283677 

Wayne CC: 07-009823-FC 

ROBERT REED, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 11, 2009 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

______________________________

No. 06-08-00091-CV

______________________________

IN RE:

MICHAEL DEAN PERRY

 

Original Mandamus Proceeding

 

 

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Carter
See TEX. R. APP. P. 35.3(e). 1

2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator, Michael Dean Perry, was convicted February 26, 2008, of the offense of tampering

with evidence. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 37.09 (Vernon Supp. 2008). Due to enhancements,

he was sentenced to twenty-five years' incarceration. The trial court appointed counsel to represent

Perry on appeal; pursuant to the various pertinent Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, the clerk's

and reporter's records have been filed with this Court, and Perry's appellate brief was initially due

with this Court on August 25, 2008. See generally TEX. R. APP. P. 34.5, 34.6, 35.2. A motion for

extension of time to file that brief is currently pending before the Court.

Notwithstanding that Perry has appointed counsel, four days before his brief was due, he filed

a petition with this Courtseeking mandamus relief. Perry would have us: 1) order the Gregg County

District Clerk and trial court reporter to provide Perry with a copy of the appellate record; and

2) order Perry's appointed counsel, Tim Cone, to visit Perry in prison on or before August 25. 

Our power to issue a writ of mandamus does not extend to the district clerk unless the relator

establishes that the writ must issue to enforce our jurisdiction. See TEX.GOV'T CODE ANN. § 22.221

(Vernon 2004); In re Simpson, 997 S.W.2d 939 (Tex. App.—Waco 1999, orig. proceeding). The

courts of appeals have the obligation to ensure records are timely filed and may enter orders to

accomplish that end as authorized by the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.1
See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(2), (4). 2

3

Likewise, based on the appellate rules, we may issue orders to ensure that attorneys file

required documents, but we do not have mandamus authority to require the relief Perry has 2

requested. As stated above, this Court is in receipt of both the clerk's and reporter's records in this

case. And nothing indicates counsel is not in the process of drafting an appellate brief in this matter.

Perry has failed to state any claim which could support mandamus relief. We deny his

petition. 

Jack Carter

Justice

Date Submitted: September 3, 2008

Date Decided: September 4, 2008
# CE2004084EN.01045701.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/457 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/457

---

(2004/C 84 E/0532)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0162/03

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 January 2003)

Subject:   Duties on canned Asiatic tuna

Subject:

The European canning industry, particularly in Galicia, is extremely concerned about the possible reductions in duties on canned tuna from the Philippines and Thailand which, it appears, may be being considered by the World Trade Organisation (WTO).

Is the Commission aware of the damage this type of measure could cause to the European canning industry, in particular that of Galicia, at a time when Galicia is already burdened with huge economic problems owing to the ‘Prestige’ oil tanker accident?

What steps will the Commission take in order to prevent such a measure from being adopted?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(26 February 2003)

(26 February 2003)

The Commission is aware of the importance of the tuna canning industry in Galicia and appreciates the concern in relation to reduced tariffs for Community imports of canned tuna from Thailand and the Philippines. It also appreciates the difficulties being experienced in that region following the ‘Prestige’ accident.

The Honourable Member will recall that during the Doha Ministerial in November 2001, the Member of the Commission responsible for Trade agreed that the Community would enter into consultations to examine the claims of Thailand and the Philippines that the Community's preferential tariff (duty-free) for imports of canned tuna from the Afriacan, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) States was causing undue impairment. The Member of the Commission also agreed that the Community would enter into mediation if the consultations failed to produce a mutually satisfactory solution. The Honourable Member will also recall that the Commission felt it necessary to take this action in order to secure the agreement of Thailand and the Philippines for a waiver that had been sought by the Community over many months for the Cotonou Agreement.

In January 2003 the Commission informed the Member States of the mediator's ‘opinion’ proposing that the Community should open a non-discriminatory quota of 25 000 tonnes at 12 % tariff rate. The Commission carefully examined the proposal and concluded that the quantity and duty rate suggested by the mediator was fair and reasonable and that it would not have an adverse economic effect on the Community market. It is worth recalling that 25 000 tonnes represents only 9 % of total imports and around 4 % of total consumption in the Community of canned tuna in 2001.

The Commission, therefore, intends making a formal proposal to the Council that the mediator's opinion should be accepted by the opening of a tariff quota as mentioned above.

---
STATE of North Carolina, Plaintiff, v. Wiley Junior AULTMAN, Jr., Defendant.

No. COA15-242.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Jan. 5, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

No Error.
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 803 

To repeal a provision enacted to end Federal matching of State spending 

of child support incentive payments. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 7, 2007 

Mr. ROCKEFELLER (for himself, Mr. CORNYN, Mr. KOHL, Ms. SNOWE, and 

Mr. COLEMAN) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To repeal a provision enacted to end Federal matching of 

State spending of child support incentive payments. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Child Support Protec5 tion Act of 2007’’. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

2 

•S 803 IS

1 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF PROVISION ENACTED TO END FEDERAL 

2 MATCHING OF STATE SPENDING OF CHILD 

3 SUPPORT INCENTIVE PAYMENTS. 

4 Section 7309 of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 

5 (Public Law 109–171, 120 Stat. 147) is repealed. 

Æ 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
* 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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-31133 Summary Calendar

GODFREY OKECHUKU OBIOZOR, Petitioner-Appellant,

versus WARDEN FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION OAKDALE; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondents-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 01-CV-1175

- - - - - - - - - - January 3, 2002 Before JOLLY, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * In this habeas corpus case filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, Godfrey Okechuku Obiozor, federal prisoner # 59498-079, filed a notice of appeal from an order of the district court construing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and transferring it to this court for consideration of whether it meets the requirements for filing a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. Obiozor has indicated that he is not seeking to raise a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, and heNo. 01-31133 -2- argues that the district court erred in construing his petition as such. This court must examine the basis of its jurisdiction on its own motion if necessary. Mosley v. Cozby , 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir. 1987). We lack jurisdiction over the district court’s interlocutory order. See Brinar v. Williamson , 245 F.3d 515, 518 (5th Cir. 2001). Therefore, the appeal is DISMISSED. The case is TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana for consideration of Obiozor’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. APPEAL DISMISSED; CASE TRANSFERRED TO THE DISTRICT COURT.
EXHIBIT 32



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



The undersigned, Peter
Zachariou and David Lean, hereby jointly certify as follows:



1. They are the
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, respectively, of Diva Entertainment, Inc. (the Company);



2. To the best of their knowledge, the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended June 30, 2003 (the Report) complies in all material
respects with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



3. To the best of their knowledge based upon a review of the Report, the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company
for the period audited.



|SIGNATURE                                   |  | TITLE                   |  | DATE           
|------------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------- |  | ---------------
|                                            |  |                        
|/s/    PETER C. ZACHARIOUPeter C. Zachariou |  | Chief Executive Officer |  | October 9, 2003



|/s/    DAVID LEANDavid Lean |  | Chief Financial Officer |  | October 9, 2003
|--------------------------- |  | ----------------------- |  | ---------------
Exhibit 99.1

**Certifications of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial OfficerPursuant to §906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

The undersigned, Chief Executive Officer of CP Limited Partnership (the “Company”), hereby certifies on the date hereof,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350(a), as adopted pursuant to §906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of CP Limited Partnership on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2003 (the “Form 10-Q”), fully complies withthe requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

| Date: May 13, 2003 |   |
|--------------------|--------|
|               |   |
|               | By:    | /s/ REES F. DAVIS, JR. |
|               |   |  |
|               | Name:  | **Rees F. Davis, Jr.** |
|               | Title: | **Chief Executive Officer** |

*A signed original of this writtenstatement required by §906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.*

Theundersigned, Chief Financial Officer of CP Limited Partnership (the “Company”), hereby certifies on the date hereof, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350(a), as adopted pursuant to §906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the QuarterlyReport of CP Limited Partnership on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2003 (the “Form 10-Q”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that theinformation contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

| Date: May 13, 2003 |   |
|--------------------|--------|
|               |   |
|               | By:    | /s/ TAMARA D. FISCHER |
|               |   |  |
|               | Name:  | **Tamara D. Fischer** |
|               | Title: | **Chief Financial Officer** |

*A signed original of this written statement requiredby §906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.*
STATE v. Donald G. BARNETTE, Jr.

No. 307P14-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Sept. 24, 2015.

Donald G. Barnette, Jr., Lumberton, for Barnette, Donald G. (Jr.).

Rajeev K. Premakumar, Assistant Attorney General, for State of N.C.

Brandy Cook, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 3rd of September 2015 by Defendant for Notice of Appeal:

> "Motion Dismissed Ex Mero Motu by order of the Court in conference, this the 24th of September 2015."