alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2009113EN.01003101.xml

| 16.5.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 113/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.5.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 113/31

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 March 2009 — TF1 v Commission

(Case T-354/05) (1)

1

(State aid - Financing of France Télévisions by the audiovisual licence fee - Constant review of existing aid - Recommendation for the adoption of appropriate measures - Member State’s commitments accepted by the Commission - Decision declaring the aid compatible with the common market - Action for annulment - Period allowed for commencing proceedings - Nature of the contested measure - Interest in bringing proceedings - Admissibility - Rights of the defence - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based - Altmark judgment)

2009/C 113/62

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Télévision française 1 SA (TF1) (Boulogne-Billancourt, France) (represented by: J.-P. Hordies and C. Smits, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Giolito, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Interveners in support of the defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and A.-L. Vendrolini, acting as Agents); and France Télévisions S.A. (Paris, France) (represented by: J.-P. Gunther and D. Tayar, lawyers)

Interveners in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2005) 1166 final of 20 April 2005 on aid granted to France Télévisions [aid E 10/2005 (ex C 60/1999) — France, Audiovisual licence fee].

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the application; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the application;

| 2. | Orders Télévision française 1 SA (TF1) to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission and by France Télévisions SA; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Télévision française 1 SA (TF1) to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission and by France Télévisions SA;

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

3.

Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 315, 10.12.2005.

1

---
csgs-ex1025af_188.htm



Pages where confidential treatment has been requested are stamped “Confidential Treatment Requested and the Redacted Material has been separately filed with the Commission,” and places where information has been redacted have been marked with (***). 

Exhibit 10.25AF

 

 

THIRTY-FOURTH AMENDMENT

TO

AMENDED AND RESTATED

CSG MASTER SUBSCRIBER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AGREEMENT

BETWEEN

CSG SYSTEMS, INC.

AND

CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS HOLDING COMPANY, LLC

 

This Thirty-fourth Amendment (the “Amendment”) is made by and between CSG Systems, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“CSG”), and Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“Customer”).  CSG and Customer entered into that certain Amended and Restated CSG Master Subscriber Management System Agreement dated February 9, 2009, as amended (the “Agreement”), and now desire to further amend the Agreement in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in this Amendment.  If the terms and conditions set forth in this Amendment shall be in conflict with the Agreement, the terms and conditions of this Amendment shall control.  Any terms in initial capital letters or all capital letters used as a defined term but not defined in this Amendment shall have the meaning set forth in the Agreement.  Upon execution of this Amendment by the parties, any subsequent reference to the Agreement between the parties shall mean the Agreement as amended by this Amendment.  Except as amended by this Amendment, the terms and conditions set forth in the Agreement shall continue in full force and effect according to their terms. 

 

CSG and Customer agree to the following:

 

1.  Pursuant to the Thirty-second Amendment executed by CSG and Customer, effective as of August 8, 2012 (CSG document no. 2313710) Customer has agreed to purchase and CSG has agreed to provide an additional instance of the Service Order Distribution Interface (”SODI”).

 

2.  As a result, the annual maintenance fee of $*********** pursuant to Schedule F, CSG Services, II, entitled "Interfaces," Section D (Telephony), subsection 3 (Maintenance (per interface)) of the Agreement, will be invoiced by CSG to Customer for the additional instance of SODI referenced in Section 1 above upon completion of implementation, pursuant to that certain Statement of Work entitled "Service Order Distribution (SODI) and Event Notification (ENI) Interfaces Implementations" (CSG document no. 2313930), of such SODI instance.

 

THIS AMENDMENT is executed on the day and year last signed below (the “Effective Date”).

 


		
	
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS HOLDING

COMPANY, LLC (“CUSTOMER”)

 

By: Charter Communications, Inc., its Manager
	
CSG SYSTEMS, INC. (“CSG”)

	
 

 

By: /s/ Steve Blechschmidt
	
 

 

By:  /s/ Michael J. Henderson

	
 

Title: Mgr. Billing Vendor Rel.
	
 

Title:  EVP Sales & Marketing

	
 

Name:  
	
 

Name:  Michael J. Henderson

	
 

Date:  11/1/12
	
 

Date:  11/1/12
# C_2008064EN.01001001.xml

| 8.3.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 64/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.3.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 64/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 24 January 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division) (United Kingdom)) — The Queen, on the application of Ezgi Payir, Burhan Akyuz, Birol Ozturk v Secretary of State for the Home Department

(Case C-294/06) (1)

1

(EEC-Turkey Association Agreement - Freedom of movement for workers - Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council - First indent of Article 6(1) - Worker duly registered as belonging to the labour force - Leave to enter as a student or as an au pair - Effect on the right to remain)

(2008/C 64/13)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Court of Appeal

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: The Queen, on the application of Ezgi Payir, Burhan Akyuz, Birol Ozturk

Applicants:

Defendant: Secretary of State for the Home Department

Defendant:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Court of Appeal — Interpretation of Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80 of the EEC-Turkey Association Council — Concept of a worker duly registered as belonging to the labour force of a Member State — Turkish national employed as an au pair after obtaining leave to remain for two years in order to pursue that activity — Turkish nationals holding leave to remain to follow a course of study and holding permission to work for a maximum of 20 hours per week during term time

Operative part of the judgment

The fact that a Turkish national was granted leave to enter the territory of a Member State as an au pair or as a student cannot deprive him of the status of ‘worker’ and prevent him from being regarded as ‘duly registered as belonging to the labour force’ of that Member State within the meaning of Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association. Accordingly, that fact cannot prevent that national from being able to rely on that provision for the purposes of obtaining renewed permission to work and a corollary right of residence.

---

(1)  OJ C 237, 30.9.2006.

1

---
WEST SIDE HEAVY HAULING, INC. v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPT. OF CRIME CONTROL & PUBLIC SAFETY, DIV. OF STATE HIGHWAY PATROL, MOTOR CARRIER ENFORCEMENT SECTION.

No. COA08-908.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed February 3, 2009.

Certification Date February 23, 2009.

Appeal from Wake (07CVS12920).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
THE NC STATE BAR v. SCOTT.

No. 250P15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Jan. 28, 2016.

Robert L. Scott, Greensboro, Attorney at Law, for Scott, Robert L. (Attorney).

David R. Johnson, Deputy Counsel, for The NC State Bar.

Katherine Jean, Raleigh, Attorney at Law, for The NC State Bar.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 17th of August 2015 by Defendant to Amend the Face Page of the Printed Record in this Appeal:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 28th of January 2016."
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 180 (Monday, September 19, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 54907]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-18562]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Defense Contract Audit Agency


Membership of the Defense Contract Audit Agency Senior Executive 
Service Performance Review Boards

AGENCY: Defense Contract Audit Agency, DoD.

ACTION: Notice of Membership of the Defense Contract Audit Agency 
Senior Executive Service Performance Review Boards.

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

SUMMARY: This Notice announces the appointment of members to the 
Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) Performance Review Boards. The 
Performance Review Boards provide fair and impartial review of Senior 
Executive Service (SES) performance appraisals and make recommendations 
to the Director, Defense Contract Audit Agency, regarding final 
performance ratings and performance awards for DCAA SES members.

EFFECTIVE DATE: Upon publication of this notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Marie Nazari, Acting Chief, Human 
Resources Management Division, Defense Contract Audit Agency, 8725 John 
J. Kingman Road, Suite 2135, Fort Belvoir, Virginia 22060-6219, (703) 
767-1042.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4), the 
following are the names and titles of DCAA career executives appointed 
to serve as members of the DCAA Performance Review Boards. Appointees 
will serve one-year terms, effective upon publication of this notice.
    Headquarters Performance Review Board: Mr. John Farenish, General 
Counsel, DCAA, chairperson. Mr. Robert DiMucci, Assistant Director, 
Policy and Plans, DCAA, member. Mr. Earl Newman, Assistant Director, 
Operations, DCAA, member.
    Regional Performance Review Board: Mr. Edward Nelson, Regional 
Director, Northeastern Region, DCAA, chairperson. Mr. Chris Andrezze, 
Regional Director, Western Region, DCAA, member. Mr. Paul Phillips, 
Deputy Regional Director, Eastern Region, member.

    Dated: September 12, 2005.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 05-18562 Filed 9-16-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-M
LAW OFFICES OF PETER H. PRIEST, PLLC v. Gabriel COCH and Information Patterns, LLC.

No. 421P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Jan. 28, 2016.

John Walter Bryant, Raleigh, Attorney at Law, for Law Offices Of Peter H. Priest, PLLC.

Carlos E. Mahoney, Durham, Attorney at Law, for Coch, Gabriel, et al.

Amber J. Ivie, Attorney at Law, for Law Offices of Peter H. Priest, PLLC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 18th of December 2015 by Plaintiff in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 28th of January 2016."
**Exhibit 31.1****Certification of Principal Executive Officer**I, Gary E. Pendleton, President and Chief Executive Officer of Ohio State Bancshares, Inc., certifythat:1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Ohio State Bancshares, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) 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 informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;(b) **[This paragraph intentionally left blank.]**(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;and(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who havea significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.     Dated: April 30, 2007 /s/ Gary E. Pendleton         Gary E. Pendleton    President and Chief Executive Officer
**Judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 12 November 2008 – Nalocebar v OHIM – Limiñana y Botella (Limoncello
di Capri)**

**(Case T-210/05)**

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings –Application for figurative Community trade mark Limoncello di Capri – Earlier national word mark LIMONCHELO – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services
– Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 25-27, 51-53)

**Re:**

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 March 2005 (Case R 646/2004-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Limiñana y Botella, SL and Nalocebar – Consultores e Serviços Ld | a | . |

**Information relating to the case**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| Applicant for the Community trade mark: | Big Ben Establishment Ltd. The applicant acquired the application for registration lodged by Big Ben Establishment |
| Community trade mark sought: | Figurative mark Limoncello di Capri for goods in Classes 30, 32 and 33 |
| Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: | Limiñana y Botella, SL |
| Mark or sign cited in opposition: | Spanish word mark Limonchelo for goods in Class 33 |
| Decision of the Opposition Division: | Registration refused |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Appeal dismissed |

**Operative part**

The Court:

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

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders Nalocebar – Consultores e Serviços Lda to pay the costs. |
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                      ORTHODONTIC CENTERS OF AMERICA, INC.
                            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 on Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended September 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the "Report"), of Orthodontic Centers of America, Inc. (the
"Company"), I, Thomas J. Sandeman, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

         (1)      The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

         (2)      The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.



November 14, 2003                      /s/ Thomas J. Sandeman
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       Thomas J. Sandeman
                                       Chief Financial Officer
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A15D0335. CEDRIC BOLDEN et al. v. COLFIN AI-GA 1, LLC.

Cedric Bolden, through attorney Grady Roberts, seeks appellate review of the

state court’s order directing the execution of a writ of possession in this dispossessory

case.1 We lack jurisdiction because the application is untimely.

Although a notice of appeal generally may be filed within thirty days of entry

of the order sought to be appealed, appeals from judgments in dispossessory actions

must be filed within seven days of the date the judgment was entered. See OCGA §

44-7-56; Radio Sandy Springs, Inc. v. Allen Road Joint Venture, 311 Ga. App. 334,

335-336 (715 SE2d 752) (2011). Here, the state court’s order was entered on March

16, 2015, and Bolden’s application for discretionary appeal was filed on March 26,

2015, ten days after the order was entered. Accordingly, this appeal is hereby

DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

1

 Bolden previously filed an application for discretionary appeal in this case,

but we transferred the appeal to state court because Bolden was not permitted to

directly appeal a magistrate court decision to this Court. Bolden v. Colfin AI-GA 1,

LLC., Application No. A15D0231 (February 4, 2015). 

04/16/2015

April 16, 2015
# CE2004070EN.01004801.xml

| 20.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 70/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 70/48

---

(2004/C 70 E/051)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1501/03

by Kathleen Van Brempt (PSE) to the Commission

(5 May 2003)

Subject:   Cruise control in trucks

Subject:

Trucks regularly collide at high speed with queues of stationary or slow-moving vehicles. In Belgium, during the proceedings of the States General for Road Safety the subject of cruise control in trucks was raised. Representatives of the police, municipal authorities and insurers, as well as politicians, agreed that the use of the automatic pilot in trucks needed to be restricted. Truckers' unions have also concluded that cruise control causes a loss of alertness. It is therefore advocated that cruise control be banned in Belgium, but because the use of cruise control is regulated at European level, a ban by Belgium alone would fail to achieve its aim.

What view does the Commission take of the possibility of banning the use of cruise control in trucks?

Does the Commission agree with the conclusion reached in Belgium that cruise control causes a loss of alertness in drivers and is therefore dangerous? What research findings does the Commission have concerning the use of cruise control?

Will the Commission take steps with regard to the use of cruise control in trucks? If so, what information can it provide on the subject?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(20 June 2003)

(20 June 2003)

The Commission has been informed about the discussion which has taken place in Belgium on the safety of electronic automatic speed systems (cruise control) fitted to lorries.

However, it does not have any information to show that the benefits of cruise control in terms of convenience for drivers, safety and the environment are negated by a loss of alertness in drivers.

It does not consider it advisable to ban the fitting or use of cruise control devices. It would ask Member States which encounter any problems to let it know about their experience and, if necessary, to discuss the need for a Community-level solution in meetings of experts designated for this purpose.

In any event, cruise control should only be used when traffic is moving smoothly. If necessary, the Commission could encourage information campaigns to make sure that this technology is used properly.

The Commission is also closely monitoring the rapid development of technology for vehicle manufacturers to combine cruise control with other equipment, such as systems which automatically check the distance between a vehicle and the one in front.

---
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 9, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136489 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

Justices 

v SC: 136489

 COA: 275844 

Wayne CC: 06-008731-01

ANTHONY WAYNE SPRAGGINS,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 1, 2008 

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. 

p0828 

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