alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Eiropas Savienības C 321A/2018

| | ISSN 1977-0952 |
| --- | --- |
| Eiropas Savienības
  Oficiālais Vēstnesis | C 321A |
| | |
| Izdevums latviešu valodā | Informācija un paziņojumi | 61. gadagājums2018. gada 11. septembris |

ISSN 1977-0952

Eiropas Savienības

Oficiālais Vēstnesis

C 321A

Izdevums latviešu valodā

Informācija un paziņojumi

61. gadagājums2018. gada 11. septembris

---

| Saturs | Lappuse |
| --- | --- |
| | Labojumi |
| 2018/C 321 A/01 | Labojums paziņojumā par atklāto konkursu – EPSO/AST-SC/07/18 – bruņoti apsargi (SC 1/SC 2) ( OV C 305 A, 30.8.2018. ) | 1 |

Saturs

Lappuse

Labojumi

2018/C 321 A/01

Labojums paziņojumā par atklāto konkursu – EPSO/AST-SC/07/18 – bruņoti apsargi (SC 1/SC 2) ( OV C 305 A, 30.8.2018. )

( OV C 305 A, 30.8.2018. )

1

---

| LV | |
| --- | --- |

LV

---

Labojumi

| 11.9.2018 | LV | Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis | CA 321/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.9.2018

LV

Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis

CA 321/1

---

Labojums paziņojumā par atklāto konkursu – EPSO/AST-SC/07/18 – bruņoti apsargi (SC 1/SC 2)

(
  “Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis” C 305 A, 2018. gada 30. augusts
  )

(2018/C 321 A/01)

8. lappusē II pielikumā:

| tekstu: | “1. | Vismaz trīs gadus ilga darba pieredze, kas iegūta pēdējo sešu gadu laikā, bruņotas aizsardzības/intervences jomā valdības, valsts un/vai starptautiskos sabiedriskās drošības dienestos, tostarp privātos drošības uzņēmumos, kas sniedz pakalpojumus starptautiskām publiskajām organizācijām, pastāvīgajām pārstāvniecībām vai diplomātiskajām pārstāvniecībām. Lai šo pieredzi ņemtu vērā, tai jābūt tādai, kas papildina pieredzi, kura dod tiesības piedalīties šajā konkursā.” |
| --- | --- | --- |

tekstu:

“1.

Vismaz trīs gadus ilga darba pieredze, kas iegūta pēdējo sešu gadu laikā, bruņotas aizsardzības/intervences jomā valdības, valsts un/vai starptautiskos sabiedriskās drošības dienestos, tostarp privātos drošības uzņēmumos, kas sniedz pakalpojumus starptautiskām publiskajām organizācijām, pastāvīgajām pārstāvniecībām vai diplomātiskajām pārstāvniecībām. Lai šo pieredzi ņemtu vērā, tai jābūt tādai, kas papildina pieredzi, kura dod tiesības piedalīties šajā konkursā.”

| lasīt šādi: | “1. | Vismaz trīs gadus ilga darba pieredze, kas iegūta pēdējo astoņu gadu laikā, bruņotas aizsardzības/intervences jomā valdības, valsts un/vai starptautiskos sabiedriskās drošības dienestos. Lai šo pieredzi ņemtu vērā, tai jābūt tādai, kas papildina pieredzi, kura dod tiesības piedalīties šajā konkursā.” |
| --- | --- | --- |

lasīt šādi:

“1.

Vismaz trīs gadus ilga darba pieredze, kas iegūta pēdējo astoņu gadu laikā, bruņotas aizsardzības/intervences jomā valdības, valsts un/vai starptautiskos sabiedriskās drošības dienestos. Lai šo pieredzi ņemtu vērā, tai jābūt tādai, kas papildina pieredzi, kura dod tiesības piedalīties šajā konkursā.”

---
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-40706

Conference Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Victor Alfonso Rodriguez-Martinez, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:20-CR-48-1

Before Smith, Stewart, and Higginson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Victor Alfonso 

Rodriguez-Martinez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in 

accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States 

v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Rodriguez-Martinez has not filed a 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 6, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-40706 Document: 00515926482 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/06/2021
No. 20-40706

2

response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the 

record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the 

appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, 

counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused 

from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 

See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

The record, however, reflects a clerical error in the written judgment. 

The written judgment states that Rodriguez-Martinez was convicted of

violating “8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 1226(b)” rather than § 1326(a) and 

§ 1326(b). Accordingly, we REMAND for correction of the written 

judgment in accordance with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.

Case: 20-40706 Document: 00515926482 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/06/2021
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 9, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 136493 Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 136493 

 COA: 283720 

Genesee CC: 06-018261-FC 

GREGORY DEAN SNYDER,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 31, 2008 order 

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. 

d0828 

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. 

September 9, 2008 

 Clerk
In the Matter of D.B.

No. COA15-785.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

March 15, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Affirmed.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-41525

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

RAMON ALVEAR

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:05-CR-96-8

Before GARZA, CLEMENT, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Ramon Alvear has moved for leave to

withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S.

738 (1967). Alvear has filed a response and, through counsel, a motion for leave

to file a pro se motion for resentencing. Our independent review of the record,

counsel’s brief, Alvear’s response, and Alvear’s motion for resentencing discloses

no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, the motion for leave to file a pro

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 20, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 06-41525

2

se motion for resentencing is DENIED, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw

is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
Exhibit 99.8

CONSENT OF STEPHANE BLAIS

Reference is made to the Annual Report on Form 40-F and the documents incorporated by reference therein (the 40-F) of Goldcorp Inc. (the Company) for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2011, and any amendments thereto, to be filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to the United States Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the Annual Information Form (the
AIF) and Managements Discussion and Analysis (MD&A) of the Company for the year then ended, which are filed as exhibits to and incorporated by reference in the 40-F.

I hereby consent to the references to, and the information derived from, the following report(s) and to the references, as applicable, to
my name in connection with (including, as an expert or qualified person) the following report(s) and documents:



| | 1. | The technical report dated March 14, 2011, as amended March 30, 2011, entitled Red Lake Gold Operation, Ontario, Canada, NI 43-101 Technical
Report (the Red Lake Report); and
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The 40-F, the MD&A and the AIF, which include references in connection with information relating to the Red Lake Report and the Red Lake Gold Mines, and the
properties described therein.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I also hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of such information
contained in the 40-F, the MD&A and the AIF into Registration Statement Nos. 333-126038, 333-126039, 333-126040, 333-138760, 333-151243, 333-151251 and 333-174376 on Form S-8 of the Company.

Date: March 30, 2012

/s/ Stephane BlaisName: Stephane Blais, P. Eng.
In the Matter of: Q.C.R and L.Q.W.

No. COA15-504.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Jan. 19, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Dismissed in part; Affirmed in part.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                   EXHIBIT 21.01

                          MotivePower Industries, Inc.
                            Corporate Legal Entities
                          Subsidiaries and Affiliates




MotivePower Industries Inc.
          M P International I
          M P International II
                    MotivePower Canada Corporation
          MotivePower Investments Limited
                    MotivePower USA Inc.
                    Boise Locomotive Company
                    Microphor Inc.
                    Young Radiator Company
                    Motorcoils Manufacturing Company
                              Motorcoils De Mexico, S.A. de C.V.
                              M.C.M. Technologia De Mexico, S.A. de C.V.
          MotivePower Foreign Sales Corporation
          Ontario Transit Limited
          MPI Noreste, S.A. de C.V.
          MPI de Mexico, S.A. de C.V.
                    WABCO J.V.
                              WABCOR
                              MPI de Mexico, S. de. R.I. de C.V.
                    MPI Pacifo Norte, S.A. de C.V.
          MPI Comercial, S.A. de C.V.
          Herzog J.V.
          MPI Comercial, S.A. de C.V.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7541

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

MILTON C. INCIARTE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, District Judge.

(CR-89-156-A, CA-97-246-AM)

Submitted: March 25, 1999 Decided: March 30, 1999

Before WILKINS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Milton C. Inciarte, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Charles Erickson, Jr.,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Milton Inciarte seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 &

Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning

of the district court. See United States v. Inciarte, Nos. CR-89-

156-A; CA-97-246-AM (E.D. Va. Sept. 17, 1998). We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                      14,772,000
<SECURITIES>                                   609,000
<RECEIVABLES>                               15,178,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   539,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            32,126,000
<PP&E>                                      15,821,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               5,885,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              62,782,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        8,549,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        18,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  52,369,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                62,782,000
<SALES>                                     85,607,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            85,607,000
<CGS>                                       64,096,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               64,096,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            33,288,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               926,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             455,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (12,040,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (12,040,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (12,040,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.66)<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.66)
<FN>
<F1>EARNINGS PER SHARE BASIC
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

WESTERN DISTRICT 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

 Respondent 

 v. 

OMAR BRADLEY, 

 Petitioner 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 179 WAL 2016 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 30th day of August, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED. 

Justice Mundy did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.
Exhibit 32
                                                                      ----------


                    Certifications pursuant to Section 1350,
                Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code

         Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States
Code, each of the undersigned officers of Maxcor Financial Group Inc., a
Delaware corporation ("registrant"), does hereby certify to the best of such
officer's knowledge, that:

         1.  This Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September
30, 2003 (the "Form 10-Q") of the registrant fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and

         2.  The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
registrant.



Dated:  November 14, 2003                   /s/ GILBERT D. SCHARF
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Gilbert D. Scharf
                                            Chief Executive Officer


Dated:  November 14, 2003                   /s/ STEVEN R. VIGLIOTTI
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Steven R. Vigliotti
                                            Chief Financial Officer


                              Page 32 of 32 Pages
Exhibit 32.1CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002          In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of LIN TV Corp. for thethree months ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, Vincent L. Sadusky, President and Chief Executive Officerof the Company, and Bart W. Catalane, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of theCompany hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:          (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and          (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.           Dated: May 10, 2007 /s/ Vincent L. Sadusky   Vincent L. Sadusky   President and Chief Executive Officer         Dated: May 10, 2007 /s/ Bart W. Catalane   Bart W. Catalane   Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
# 4 3<> -/J ELECTRONIC RECORD
COA# 11-12-00134-CR OFFENSE: 22.01 

### Jack Theotrice Clark, Jr. v. 

### STYLE: The State ofTexas COUNTY: Taylor COA DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED TRIAL COURT: 350th District Court DATE:3/12/13 Publish: YES TC CASE #: 9708-D

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 

### Jack Theotrice Clark, Jr. v. 

## style: The State ofTexas APPALLAHT\<> Petition FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS: 

# DATE: 06/&1/301 f JUDGE: 

# A U> 'stAsiAstiH^- CCA#: PD-0439-15 CCA Disposition: DATE: JUDGE: SIGNED: PUBLISH:

REHEARING IN CCA IS: JUDGE: PC:_ DNP:

MOTION FOR

ELECTRONIC RECORD
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-08-00437-CV

In re Fred Lyndsay

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM SCHLEICHER COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Relator filed his petition for writ of mandamus on July 15, 2008. On July 30, the

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services filed an unopposed motion to abate the

proceeding until after a hearing scheduled for August 13. On July 31, we granted the motion and

abated the proceeding. Relator has now filed an unopposed motion to dismiss his petition for writ

of mandamus. He represents that all parties are in agreement with the dismissal. We therefore

reinstate the cause, grant the motion, and dismiss the petition for writ of mandamus.

__________________________________________

Bob Pemberton, Justice

Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Pemberton and Waldrop

Filed: August 15, 2008
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 1177

SENN FREIGHT LINES INC

. , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Anderson

. Timothy M. Cain , District Judge. ( 8:18

- cv
- 00226

- TMC )

Submitted : September 27, 2019 Decided: October 7 , 2019

Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ , Circuit Judges , and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Louis H. Lang, CALLISON TIGHE & ROBINSON, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, Abby C. Wright, Casen B. Ross, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.; Paul M. Geier, Assistant General Counsel for Litigation and Enforcement, Paula Lee, Senior Trial Attorney, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Washington, D.C.; Jim Mullen, Chi ef Counsel, Sabrina E. Redd, Attorney Advisor, FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION, Washington, D.C.; Sherri A. Lydon, United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES2 ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM: Senn Freight Lines Inc. appeals the district court’s order granting the motion to dismiss its civil action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). We have reviewed t he record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Senn Freight Lines Inc. v. United
States , No. 8:18

- cv
- 00226

- TMC (D.S.C. Dec. 18, 2018); see also Pornomo v. United
States , 814 F.3d 681, 690 (4th Cir. 2016) (concluding district court had no jurisdiction over challenge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2342(3)(A) (2012)). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this

court an d argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
STATE of North Carolina v. Windsor Devone INGRAM.

No. 283P13-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Nov. 5, 2015.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 31st of August 2015 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

> "Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th of November 2015."
In the Matter of T.Y-S., N.S., Juveniles.

No. COA15-24.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Sept. 15, 2015.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Affirmed.
# C_2011089EN.01001401.xml

| 19.3.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 89/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.3.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 89/14

---

Judgment of the General Court of 3 February 2011 — Cetarsa v Commission

(Case T-33/05) (1)

1

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Spanish market for the purchase and first processing of raw tobacco - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Price fixing and market-sharing - Fines - Gravity and duration of the infringement - Equal treatment - Principle of proportionality - Maximum limit of 10 % of turnover - Cooperation)

2011/C 89/31

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Compañía española de tabaco en rama, SA (Cetarsa) (Navalmoral de la Mata, Spain) (represented by: M. Araujo Boyd, J. Buendía Sierra and A. Givaja Sanz, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and É. Gippini Fournier, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Firstly, an application for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2004) 4030 final of 20 October 2004 relating to a proceeding under Article 81(1) EC (Case COMP/C.38.238/B.2 — Raw Tobacco — Spain), secondly and in the alternative, an application for the reduction of the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant in that decision and, thirdly, a counterclaim by the Commission seeking to have that amount increased.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets the amount of the fine imposed on Compañía española de tabaco en rama, SA (Cetarsa) in Article 3 of Commission Decision C(2004) 4030 final of 20 October 2004 relating to a proceeding under Article 81(1) EC (Case COMP/C.38.238/B.2 — Raw Tobacco — Spain) at EUR 3 147 000; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets the amount of the fine imposed on Compañía española de tabaco en rama, SA (Cetarsa) in Article 3 of Commission Decision C(2004) 4030 final of 20 October 2004 relating to a proceeding under Article 81(1) EC (Case COMP/C.38.238/B.2 — Raw Tobacco — Spain) at EUR 3 147 000;

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Dismisses the European Commission’s counterclaim; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Dismisses the European Commission’s counterclaim;

| 4. | Orders Cetarsa to bear eight-tenths of its own costs and eight-tenths of the costs incurred by the Commission, and orders the Commission to bear two-tenths of its own costs and two-tenths of the costs incurred by Cetarsa. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders Cetarsa to bear eight-tenths of its own costs and eight-tenths of the costs incurred by the Commission, and orders the Commission to bear two-tenths of its own costs and two-tenths of the costs incurred by Cetarsa.

---

(1)  OJ C 82, 2.4.2005.

1

---