alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2010148EN.01002401.xml

| 5.6.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 148/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.6.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/24

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 April 2010 — Amann & Söhne and Cousin Filterie v Commission

(Case T-446/05) (1)

1

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market in industrial thread - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Concept of a single infringement - Definition of the market - Fines - Upper limit for the fine - Gravity and duration of the infringement - Mitigating circumstances - Cooperation - Proportionality - Equal treatment - Rights of the defence - Guidelines on the method of setting fines)

2010/C 148/41

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Amann & Söhne GmbH & Co. KG (Bönnigheim, Germany) and Cousin Filterie SAS (Wervicq-Sud, France) (represented by: A. Röhling, M. Dietrich and C. Horstkotte, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and K. Mojzesowicz, acting as Agents, assisted by G. Eickstädt, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2005) 3452 of 14 September 2005 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.337 — PO/Thread), as amended by Commission Decision C(2005) 3765 of 13 October 2005, and, in the alternative, for reduction of the fine imposed on the applicants by that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Amann & Söhne GmbH & Co. KG and Cousin Filterie SAS to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Amann & Söhne GmbH & Co. KG and Cousin Filterie SAS to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 60, 11.3.2006.

1

---
Exhibit 99.13
 CONSENT OF A. ROSS
   1.
    
    The technical report dated March 31, 2006 entitled Technical Report
NI 43-101F1 Los Filos Project, Mexico (the Los Filos Report); and2.
    
    The 40-F, the MD&A and the AIF, which include references in connection
with information relating to the Los Filos Report and the Los Filos
Mine, and the properties described therein.
  /s/ A. J. RossName:
    Andrew Ross, P. Geo.Title:
    Group General Manager
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-12-00101-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF S.L.L., A CHILD,

From the County Court at Law

Ellis County, Texas

Trial Court No. 82974CCL

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellants have filed a “motion to dismiss appeal.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1). 

It states that Appellants no longer desire to pursue this appeal.

Dismissal of this appeal would not prevent a party from seeking relief to which it 

would otherwise be entitled. The motion is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.

REX D. DAVIS

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and 

Justice Scoggins

Motion granted; appeal dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed May 2, 2012

[CV06]
null

2011-03-04

535.94653

eng - Argued: 2011-03-04. Docket number: 5-09-0358
EXHIBIT 32





Certification of Chief Executive Officer


Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Micrel, Incorporated (the “Company”) hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that:





(i)           the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2009 (the “Report”) fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





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








Date: November 9, 2009
By           /s/ Raymond D. ZinnRaymond D. ZinnChief Executive Officer













Certification of Chief Financial Officer


Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Micrel, Incorporated (the “Company”) hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that:





(i)           the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2009 (the “Report”) fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





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








Date: November 9, 2009
By           /s/ Clyde R. WallinClyde R. WallinChief Financial Officer
Order entered April 22, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-12-01532-CR

FELIX HERNANDEZ CISNEROS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F11-60536-U

ORDER

The Court REINSTATES the appeal.

On April 9, 2013, we ordered the trial court to make findings regarding why the 

reporter’s record had not been filed. On April 18, 2013, we received the reporter’s record. 

Therefore, in the interest of expediting the appeal, we VACATE the April 9, 2013 order 

requiring findings.

Appellant’s brief is due within thirty days of the date of this order.

/s/ DAVID EVANS

JUSTICE
STATE v. Claude Edward DAMMONS.

No. 295P15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Nov. 19, 2015.

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

Claude Edward Dammons, Burgaw, for Dammons, Claude Edward.

Vernon K. Stewart, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 17th of August 2015 by Defendant to Proceed In Forma Pauperis:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 19th of November 2015."
EXHIBIT 32





Certification of Chief Executive Officer


Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Micrel, Incorporated (the “Company”) hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that:





(i)           the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2010 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





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








Date: November 8, 2010
By           /s/ Raymond D. ZinnRaymond D. ZinnChief Executive Officer











Certification of Chief Financial Officer


Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Micrel, Incorporated (the “Company”) hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that:





(i)           the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2010 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





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








Date: November 8, 2010
By           /s/ Clyde R. WallinClyde R. WallinChief Financial Officer
# C_2012355EN.01001601.xml

| 17.11.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 355/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.11.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 355/16

---

Judgment of the General Court of 27 September 2012 — Vermeer Infrastructuur v Commission

(Case T-353/06) (1)

1

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Netherlands market in road pavement bitumen - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Existence and classification of an agreement - Restriction of competition - Guidelines on the applicability of Article 81 EC to horizontal cooperation agreements - Calculation of the amount of the fines - Gravity and duration of the infringement - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence)

2012/C 355/29

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Vermeer Infrastructuur BV (Hoofddorp, Netherlands) (represented by: M. Slotboom, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented: initially by A. Bouquet and A. Nijenhuis, Agents, and by F. Wijckmans, F. Tuytschaever and L. Gyselen, lawyers, and subsequently by A. Bouquet, A. Nijenhuis and F. Ronkes Agerbeek, Agents, and by F. Wijckmans and F. Tuytschaever)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application, principally, for annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 4090 final of 13 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/F/38.456 — Bitumen (Netherlands)), in particular in so far as it concerns the applicant, and, in the alternative, for reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Vermeer Infrastructuur BV to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Vermeer Infrastructuur BV to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 20, 27.1.2007.

1

---
# CE2004078EN.01020902.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/209 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/209

---

(2004/C 78 E/0214)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3018/03

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(14 October 2003)

Subject:   Promotions within the Commission

Subject:

What is the Commission's position with regard to the claims made by the Commission official Josè A. Sequeira Carvalho (Staff No 61779) with regard to his failure to be promoted to A4, which he believes should have taken place in 2000?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(21 November 2003)

(21 November 2003)

The reasons why Mr Sequeira has not been promoted to grade A4 since 2000 were set out in detail in a note signed by Mr Richelle, Director General of Directorate General Development on 13 August 2003 and addressed to Mr Sequeira.

Officials who are not satisfied with a decision by the Appointing Authority can, of course, specify and register a complaint in accordance with Article 90 §2 of the Staff Regulation. Such complaints — or appeals — are given attention with rigour and with respect for the privacy of the individual.

---
#### Judith Salgado, Appellant, v Geraldine B. Ring et al., Respondents.

[798 NYS2d 918]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golar, J.), dated April 7, 2004, which denied her motion, denominated as one for leave to reargue and renew, but which was, in effect, for leave to reargue the defendants’ prior motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with costs.

The plaintiff’s motion, denominated as one for leave to reargue and renew, was based upon evidence which could have been discovered earlier with due diligence. Since the plaintiff failed to proffer a reasonable excuse for her failure to present such evidence on the prior motion, the Supreme Court properly deemed it a motion for leave to reargue, the denial of which is not appealable *(see EMC Mtge. Corp. v Stewart,*2 AD3d 772 [2003]; *Reyes v Ross,*289 AD2d 554 [2001]). Adams, J.P., Krausman, Spolzino and Fisher, JJ., concur.
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-12-00519-CV

JENA GONZALEZ

v.

SOUTH TEXAS VETERINARY ASSOCIATES, INC.

On Appeal from the

County Court at Law No. 5 of Nueces County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 2011-CCV-61850-5

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the judgment of the trial court should be reversed and the cause 

remanded to the trial court. The Court orders the judgment of the trial court 

REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. Costs 

of the appeal are adjudged against appellee.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

December 19, 2013
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

        CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section
1350), the undersigned certifies that (1) this Annual Report of W. R. Grace &
Co. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (this "Report"),
fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and (2) the information contained
in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.



/s/ Robert M. Tarola
---------------------------------
Senior Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer

Date: March 13, 2003
# C_2008128EN.01001101.xml

| 24.5.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 128/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.5.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/11

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 April 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart) — Annelore Hamilton v Volksbank Filder eG

(Case C-412/06) (1)

1

(Consumer protection - Contracts negotiated away from business premises - Directive 85/577/EEC - First paragraph of Article 4 and Article 5(1) - Contract for long-term credit - Right of cancellation)

(2008/C 128/16)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Annelore Hamilton

Applicant:

Defendant: Volksbank Filder eG

Defendant:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart — Interpretation of Articles 4 and 5 of Council Directive 85/577/EEC of 20 December 1985 to protect the consumer in respect of contracts negotiated away from business premises (OJ 1985 L 372, p. 31) — Cancellation of a loan contract, negotiated away from business premises, to finance the acquisition of shares in a real property fund — National legislation under which the right of cancellation expires one month after both parties have performed in full their contractual obligations, even where a consumer has not been informed of that right

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 85/577/EEC of 20 December 1985 to protect the consumer in respect of contracts negotiated away from business premises must be interpreted as meaning that the national legislature is entitled to provide that the right of cancellation laid down in Article 5(1) of the directive may be exercised no later than one month from the time at which the contracting parties have performed in full their obligations under a contract for long-term credit, where the consumer has been given defective notice concerning the exercise of that right.

---

(1)  OJ C 310 of 16.12.2006.

1

---
State of North Carolina v. John W. Hearne

No. 411P15-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 9, 2016

John W. Hearne, Pro Per.

Kathleen N. Bolton, Assistant Attorney General, Michael D. Waters, District Attorney, For State of North Carolina.

**ORDER**

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 25th of April 2016 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order 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 9th of June 2016."
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         143,586
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               21,715,670
<ALLOWANCES>                                   589,271
<INVENTORY>                                 17,830,328
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            42,014,981
<PP&E>                                      10,213,327
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,319,893
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              49,891,939
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       18,941,417
<BONDS>                                     26,882,352
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        69,143
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,295,961
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                49,891,939
<SALES>                                     37,498,197
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            37,498,197
<CGS>                                       29,429,709
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               29,429,709
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             6,387,188
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               200,813
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,251,630
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                313,968
<INCOME-TAX>                                   135,900
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            178,068
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   178,068
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.02


</TABLE>
# C_2008022EN.01001301.xml

| 26.1.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 22/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 22/13

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 6 December 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Ferriere Nord SpA

(Case C-516/06 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Competition - Commission decision - Fine - Enforcement - Regulation (EEC) No 2988/74 - Limitation period - Acts adversely affecting a party - Inadmissibility)

(2008/C 22/24)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Di Bucci and F. Amato, Agents)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Ferriere Nord SpA (represented by: W. Viscardini and G. Donà, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 27 September 2006 in Case T-153/04 Ferriere Nord SpA v Commission by which the Court of First Instance annulled the Commission decisions notified by letter of 5 February 2004 and by facsimile of 13 April 2004 concerning the outstanding balance of the fine imposed on the applicant by Commission Decision 89/515/EEC of 2 August 1989 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EEC Treaty (IV/31.553 — Welded steel mesh)

Ferriere Nord SpA

Commission

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 27 September 2006 in Case T-153/04 Ferriere Nord v Commission; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 27 September 2006 in Case T-153/04 Ferriere Nord v Commission;

Ferriere Nord

Commission

| 2. | Declares the action for annulment brought by Ferriere Nord SpA against the decisions of the Commission of the European Communities notified by letter of 5 February 2004 and by fax of 13 April 2004 concerning the outstanding balance of the fine imposed on Ferriere Nord SpA by Commission Decision 89/515/EEC of 2 August 1989 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EEC Treaty (IV/31.553 — Welded steel mesh) inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Declares the action for annulment brought by Ferriere Nord SpA against the decisions of the Commission of the European Communities notified by letter of 5 February 2004 and by fax of 13 April 2004 concerning the outstanding balance of the fine imposed on Ferriere Nord SpA by Commission Decision 89/515/EEC of 2 August 1989 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EEC Treaty (IV/31.553 — Welded steel mesh) inadmissible.

| 3. | Orders Ferriere Nord SpA to pay the costs of both sets of proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Ferriere Nord SpA to pay the costs of both sets of proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 42, 24.2.2007.

1

---
# C_2011226EN.01002103.xml

| 30.7.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 226/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.7.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 226/21

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 June 2011 — SNIA v Commission

(Case T-194/06) (1)

1

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Hydrogen peroxide and sodium perborate - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Imputability of the infringement - Acquisition of a company liable for the infringement - Rights of the defence - Consistency between the statement of objections and the contested decision - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based)

2011/C 226/41

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: SNIA SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: A. Santa Maria, B. Biscaretti di Ruffia and E. Gambaro, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by V. Di Bucci and F. Amato, and subsequently by V. Di Bucci and V. Bottka, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 1766 final of 3 May 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.620 — Hydrogen peroxide and perborate) in so far as it concerns the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders SNIA SpA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders SNIA SpA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 212, 2.9.2006.

1

---
# C_2008183EN.01001901.xml

| 19.7.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 183/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.7.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 183/19

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 5 June 2008 — Internationaler Hilfsfonds v Commission

(Case T-141/05) (1)

1

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

(2008/C 183/38)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Internationaler Hilfsfonds eV (Rosbach, Germany) (represented by: H. Kaltenecker, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. Costa de Oliveira, S. Fries and C. Ladenburger, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Application for annulment of the so-called 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 of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

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

2.

Orders Internationaler Hilfsfonds to pay its own costs and those of the Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 143 of 11.6.2005.

1

---