alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2010179EN.01003001.xml

| 3.7.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.7.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 19 May 2010 — Boliden and Others v Commission

(Case T-19/05) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Copper plumbing tube industry - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Continuous and multiform infringement - Fines - Limitation period - Cooperation)

(2010/C 179/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Boliden AB (Stockholm, Sweden); Outokumpu Copper Fabrication AB, formerly Boliden Fabrication AB (Västerås, Sweden); Outokumpu Copper BCZ SA, formerly Boliden Cuivre & Zinc SA (Liège, Belgium) (represented: initially by C. Wetter and O. Rislund and subsequently by C. Wetter and M. Johansson, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: É. Gippini Fournier and S. Noë, Agents)

Re:

Application (i) for annulment of Article 1(a) to (c) of Commission Decision C(2004) 2826 of 3 September 2004 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/E-1/38.069 — Copper plumbing tubes) in so far as it was thereby found that the applicants participated in an infringement between 1 July 1995 and 27 August 1998 and between 10 December 1998 and 7 October 1999; (ii) for reduction of the fine imposed on the applicants by that decision; and (iii) by way of counterclaim by the Commission, for the amount of that fine to be increased.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Dismisses the European Commission’s counterclaim; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the European Commission’s counterclaim;

| 3. | Orders Boliden AB, Outokumpu Copper Fabrication AB and Outokumpu Copper BCZ SA to bear their own costs and to pay 90 % of the costs incurred by the Commission; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Boliden AB, Outokumpu Copper Fabrication AB and Outokumpu Copper BCZ SA to bear their own costs and to pay 90 % of the costs incurred by the Commission;

| 4. | Orders the Commission to bear 10 % of its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the Commission to bear 10 % of its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 82, 2.4.2005.

---
STATE v. Thomas Craig CAMPBELL.

No. 252PA14-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Nov. 10, 2015.

Barbara S. Blackman, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Campbell, Thomas Craig.

Teresa M. Postell, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Mike Miller, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 9th of November 2015 by State of N.C. for Temporary Stay:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 10th of November 2015."
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-41149

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

GUILLERMO AYALA,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas 

Before JOLLY, GARZA, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Guillermo Ayala was convicted below of illegal reentry into the

United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a)-(b). Prior to being deported,

Ayala was convicted of indecency with a child in violation of Texas Penal Code

§ 21.11(a)(1). Equating “indecency with a child” under Texas law with “sexual

abuse of a minor” for purposes of § 2L1.2 of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines,

the district court enhanced Ayala’s offense level by sixteen and imposed a

sentence of seventy-eight months’ imprisonment. 

Ayala contends that § 21.11(a)(1) proscribes conduct beyond that falling

within the ordinary and contemporary meaning of“sexual abuse of a minor,” and

therefore that his prior conviction under that statute is not a legitimate basis for

a crime-of-violence enhancement under the Guidelines. Specifically, he argues

that the definition of “child” under § 21.11(a)—a person less than seventeen

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

September 8, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-41149

2

years of age—is inconsistent with the contemporary and ordinary meaning of

“minor” because, for purposes of many states’ statutory rape laws, a person’s

“age of consent” is deemed to be sixteen. See generally United States v. LopezDeleon, 513 F.3d 472 (5th Cir. 2008) (discussing when children reach the age of

consent under various states’ statutory rape laws). 

As Ayala recognizes, we have already addressed the issue of whether a

violation of § 21.11(a) constitutes sexual abuse of a minor for purposes of § 2L1.2;

in answering in the affirmative, we have stated that “‘a child younger than 17

years[]’ is clearly a ‘minor.’” United States v. Zavala-Sustaita, 214 F.3d 601, 604

(5th Cir. 2000) (quoting § 21.11(a)); see also United States v. Najera-Najera, 519

F.3d 509, 511 (5th Cir. 2008) (relying on Zavala-Sustaita in stating “under

generic-meaning analysis, a person younger than 17 years old is a ‘child’”).

Because our precedent forecloses Ayala’s argument, the judgment of the district

court is AFFIRMED.
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-16-00125-CV

In the Interest of J.F. and S.F., Children

On appeal from the

36th District Court of Aransas County, Texas

Trial Cause No. A-14-0222-CV-A

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED. Costs of the appeal are adjudged 

against appellant.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

July 14, 2016
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 179 (Friday, September 16, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54796-54797]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-18438]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration <greek-i> 10193 and <greek-i> 10194]


Georgia Disaster <greek-i> GA-00004

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a 
disaster

[[Page 54797]]

for the State of Georgia dated 09/07/2005.
    Incident: Severe Storms and Tornadoes.
    Incident Period: 08/29/2005.
    Effective Date: 09/07/2005.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 11/07/2005.
    EIDL Loan Application Deadline Date: 06/07/2006.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Disaster Area Office 3, 14925 Kingsport Road Fort 
Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, Suite 
6050, Washington, DC 20416.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of 
the Administrator's disaster declaration applications for disaster 
loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally 
announced locations.
    The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected 
by the disaster:

Primary Counties:
    Carroll, Peach.
Contiguous Counties:
    Alabama, Cleburne,Randolph.
    Georgia, Bibb, Coweta, Crawford, Douglas, Fulton, Haralson, Heard, 
Houston, Macon, Paulding, Taylor.
    The Interest Rates are:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homeowners with credit available elsewhere...................      5.375
Homeowners without credit available elsewhere................      2.687
Businesses with credit available elsewhere...................      6.557
Businesses & small agricultural cooperatives without credit        4.000
 available elsewhere.........................................
Other (including non-profit organizations) with credit             4.750
 available elsewhere.........................................
Businesses and non-profit organizations without credit             4.000
 available elsewhere.........................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 10193 C 
and for economic injury is 10194 0.
    The States which received an EIDL Declaration <greek-i> are 
Georgia, Alabama.

    (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 
59008).
    Dated: September 7, 2005.
Hector V. Barreto,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 05-18438 Filed 9-15-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
STATE of North Carolina v. Jordan Leon MUSTARD, Defendant.

No. COA15-147.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Dec. 15, 2015.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

No Error.
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 20 (Tuesday, February 1, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 5195]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-1842]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney 
Disorders; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. appendix 2) notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The purpose of this meeting is to evaluate requests 
for preclinical development resources for potential new therapeutics 
for type 1 diabetes. The outcome of the evaluation will be a decision 
whether NIDDK should support the request and make available contract 
resources for development of the potential therapeutic to improve the 
treatment or prevent the development of type 1 diabetes and its 
complications. The research proposals and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the proposed research projects, the disclosure of which 
would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Type 1 Diabetes--Rapid Access to Intervention 
Development Special Emphasis Panel, National Institute of Diabetes 
and Digestive and Kidney Diseases.
    Date: February 18, 2005.
    Time: 2 a.m.-4 p.m.
    Agenda: To evaluate requests for preclinical development 
resources for potential new therapeutics for type 1 diabetes and its 
complications.
    Place: 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone 
conference call).
    Contact Person: Dr. Myrlene Staten, Senior Advisor, Diabetes 
Translation Research, Division of Diabetes, Endocrinology and 
Metabolic Diseases, NIDDK, NIH, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, 
MD 20892-5460, (301) 402-7886.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.847, 
Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolic Research; 93.848, Digestive 
Diseases and Nutrition Research, 98.849, Kidney Diseases, Urology 
and Hematology Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: January 26, 2005.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 05-1842 Filed 1-31-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
KIRBY, et al. v. NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION.

No. 56PA14-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Dec. 15, 2015.

Matthew H. Bryant, Winston-Salem, for Kirby, Everette E., et al.

Dahr Joseph Tanoury, Assistant Attorney General, for North Carolina Department of Transportation.

John F. Oates, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, for North Carolina Department of Transportation.

John F. Maddrey, Solicitor General, for North Carolina Department of Transportation.

T. Paul Hendrick, Winston-Salem, for Kirby, Everette E., et al.

Kenneth C. Otis, III, Winston-Salem, for Kirby, Everette E., et al.

Kenneth A. Shanklin, Wilmington, for Wilmington Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization.

Matthew A. Nichols, for Wilmington Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization.

*289Elliot M. Engstrom, Raleigh, for Pacific Legal Foundation and Center for Law and Freedom.

W. Kirk Sanders, Winston-Salem, for Kirby, Everette E., et al.

John L. Wait, High Point, for N.C. Association of Realtors, Inc.

G. Wilson Martin, Jr., for N.C. Association of Realtors, Inc.

Jonathan D. Guze, Durham, for The John Locke Foundation.

Jessica Odom Wilkie, for N.C. Advocates for Justice.

Joshua D. Hansen, for N.C. Advocates for Justice.

Jones R. Byrd, for N.C. Advocates for Justice.

Carlene M. McNulty, for N.C. Justice Center.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 6th of November 2015 by Pacific Legal Foundation and Center for Law and Freedom for leave to file Amicus Curiae Brief:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 15th of December 2015."

Unless already submitted, the Amicus Brief shall be submitted to the court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 28(i).
STATE of North Carolina v. Glynn Edwards JACOBS, Defendant.

No. COA15-160.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Nov. 17, 2015.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

No Error.
STATE of North Carolina v. Omar JACKSON.

No. 430P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Jan. 5, 2016.

Omar Jackson, for Jackson, Omar.

Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of N.C.

N. Lorrin Freeman, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 22nd of December 2015 in this matter for a writ of mandamus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Wake County:

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th of January 2016."
**Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 5 June 2008 – Internationaler Hilfsfonds v Commission**

**(Case T-141/05)**

Action for annulment – Access to documents – Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 – Partial refusal – Non-actionable measure – Merely confirmatory measure – Inadmissibility

1.                     *Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Meaning – Measures producing binding legal effects (Art. 230 EC; European Parliament
and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Arts 7(1) and 8; Commission Decision 2001/937, Annex, Arts 3 and 4) (see paras 56-57,
79, 108-110)*

2.                     *European Ombudsman – Alternative to an action before the Community judicature – Not possible to pursue both remedies in parallel
(Art. 195(1) EC; Statute of the European Ombudsman, Art. 2(6) and (7)) (see para. 59)*

3.                     *Actions for annulment – Action against a decision merely confirming a previous decision (Art. 230 EC) (see paras 69-70, 81-82)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | APPLICATION for annulment of the alleged decision contained in the letter of the Commission of 14 February 2005 refusing the applicant access to certain documents from the file regarding the contract LIEN 97-2011. |

**Operative part**

The Court:

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

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders Internationaler Hilfsfonds eV to pay its own costs and those of the Commission. |
* 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. 07-51396

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

VICENTE MACIAS

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:07-CR-84-1

Before GARZA, CLEMENT, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Vicente Macias has moved for leave

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

U.S. 738 (1967). Macias has not filed a response. Our independent review of the

record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal.

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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 20, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
STATE v. Jacob Mark SPIVEY.

No. 143PA15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Aug. 21, 2015.

W. Michael Spivey, Rocky Mount, for Spivey, Jacob Mark.

*509Brent Kiziah, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Ben R. David, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 13th of July 2015 by Defendant's attorney to Withdraw:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 21st of August 2015."
* 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. 08-50249

Summary Calendar

OTIS W. GRIGSBY, SR.

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

JOHN E. POTTER,

United States Postmaster General

Defendant-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

(5:06-CV-761)

Before WIENER, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges..

PER CURIAM:*

Plaintiff-Appellant Otis W. Grigsby, Sr., proceeding pro se, appeals the

district court’s take-nothing judgment filed February 15, 2008, against Grigsby

and in favor of Defendant-Appellee, in conformity with the court’s Memorandum

Opinion and Order filed that same day.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

September 10, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-50249

2

We have carefully reviewed the entire record on appeal, including the

Memorandum and Recommendation of the magistrate judge filed January 29,

2008 and the aforesaid Memorandum Opinion and Order of the district court,

both of which fully and accurately setforth the relevantfacts and applicable law.

Our review satisfies us that the court’s reasoning and ruling are eminently

correct, fair, and just, and that Grigsby’s appeal is not only wholly without merit

but is so baseless in fact and in law as to be frivolous. Indeed, were Grigsby not

pro se, we would consider imposing sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of

Appellate Procedure 38 for taking and pursuing a frivolous appeal. Instead, we

caution him that any further prolongation of this matter on his part could and

likely shall result in the imposition of sanctions.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is, in all

respects, AFFIRMED, with all costs of these proceedings to be assessed against

Grigsby.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 9, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 135997(51) Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

NSK CORPORATION, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

Cross-Appellee,
 

v SC: 135997 

 COA: 274633 

Ct of Claims: 2005-000137-MT 

DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY,

Defendant-Appellee, 

Cross-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s May 30, 2008 

order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was 

entered erroneously.

 KELLY, J., would grant reconsideration and, on reconsideration, would grant leave 

to appeal. 

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
# CE2004070EN.01023601.xml

| 20.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 70/236 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 70/236

---

(2004/C 70 E/253)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3205/03

by Giles Chichester (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(30 October 2003)

Subject:   Formal complaint re Objective 2 funding to support the Broadband4Devon Project

Subject:

Has the Commission received the formal complaint filed by Colin Coleman, of Devon, with regard to the Objective 2 funding to support the ‘Broadband4Devon Project’ as proposed by Devon County Council?

What is the Commission doing about this issue? What is the likely timetable for a response to my constituent?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(10 December 2003)

(10 December 2003)

The Commission has received the seven letters in the course of this year from Mr Coleman dated 4 July 8 August, 12 and 17 September, 6 and 30 October and 7 November with regard to the Objective 2 funding to support the ‘Broadband4Devon Project’ as proposed by Devon County Council. A reply was sent directly to Mr Coleman by letter of 10 November 2003.

In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, the day-to-day management of programmes supported by the Structural Funds is a responsibility that is decentralised to the authorities in the Member States and regions once the strategic priorities of the programme have been agreed with the Commission. Under Article 38 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (1) the managing authority bears the responsibility for ensuring the efficiency and correctness of the programme's management and implementation and, in particular, the compliance with Community policies. The appraisal procedure used to decide funding for individual projects under the programme was adopted by the Programme Monitoring Committee, in accordance with Article 35 of the above Regulation and the principle of subsidiarity.

1

These provisions seek to ensure that applicants for support from the programmes are treated equally and that all projects selected are in compliance with Community legislation, especially with regard to state aid and public procurement rules.

On the basis of the information at its disposal, the Commission has no evidence of an infringement of Community law regarding the approval of the ‘Broadband4Devon’ project.

---

(1)  OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

1

---