alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 23 September 2009 – Spain v Commission**

**(Case T-341/05)**

Agriculture – Common organisation of the market in milk and milk products – Abolition of export refunds for all milk products to Ceuta and Melilla – Conditions – Principle of non-discrimination – Proportionality

Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Milk and milk products – Export refunds (Art. 34(2), second para., EC; Council Regulation No 1255/1999, Art. 31(2)(c) and (3); Commission Regulation
No 909/2005) (see paras 21, 38, 48-49, 69, 72, 74, 94-96)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 909/2005 of 16 June 2005 fixing the export refunds on milk and milk products (OJ 2005 L 154, p. 10), in so far as its Annex includes Ceuta and Mellila among the destinations grouped together under the destination L 01. |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Annuls Commission Regulation (EC) No 909/2005 of 16 June 2005 fixing the export refunds on milk and milk products, in so far as it mentions Ceuta et Melilla among the destinations grouped together under the destination L 01; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs. |
# C_2011347EN.01002602.xml

| 26.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/26

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 October 2011 — Alliance One International v Commission

(Case T-41/05) (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 - Attributability of the unlawful conduct - Maximum limit of 10 % of turnover - Deterrent effect - Attenuating circumstances)

2011/C 347/38

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Alliance One International Inc., formerly Dimon Inc. (Danville, Virginia, United States) (represented initially by L. Bergkamp, H. Cogels, J. Dhont, M. Marañon Hermoso and A. Emch, and subsequently by M. Odriozola Alén, J. Folguera Crespo, P. Vidal Martínez, M. Barrantes Diaz and A. João Vide, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by É. Gippini Fournier and F. Amato, and subsequently by É. Gippini Fournier, N. Khan and J. Bourke, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

APPLICATION for the partial 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) and, in the alternative, for a reduction in the fine imposed on the applicant in that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets the part of the fine imposed on Agroexpansión, SA 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), for the payment of which Alliance One International, Inc. is held jointly and severally liable with Agroexpansión, at EUR 2 187 000; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets the part of the fine imposed on Agroexpansión, SA 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), for the payment of which Alliance One International, Inc. is held jointly and severally liable with Agroexpansión, at EUR 2 187 000;

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders Alliance One International to bear nine tenths of its own costs and to pay nine tenths of the costs incurred by the European Commission, and the Commission to bear one tenth of its own costs and to pay one tenth of those incurred by Alliance One International. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Alliance One International to bear nine tenths of its own costs and to pay nine tenths of the costs incurred by the European Commission, and the Commission to bear one tenth of its own costs and to pay one tenth of those incurred by Alliance One International.

---

(1)  OJ C 93, 16.4.2005.

1

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-6774

CLIFFORD LESTER,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

K. J. WENDT, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern

District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr.,

Senior District Judge. (1:04-cv-00247)

Submitted: September 11, 2008 Decided: September 15, 2008

Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Clifford Lester, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
 2 

PER CURIAM:

Clifford Lester, a federal prisoner, appeals the district

court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge

and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition. We

have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. See Lester v. Wendt, No. 1:04-cv-00247 (N.D.W. Va. Dec. 26,

2006). 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.

AFFIRMED
**Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 24 March 2011 – Legris Industries v Commission**

**(Case T-376/06)**

Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Copper and copper alloy fittings sector – Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC – Imputability of the infringement

1.                     *Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Identification of the subject-matter of the dispute
– Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based – General reference to documents annexed to the application
– Inadmissibility (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see
paras 30-32)*

2.                     *Competition – Community rules – Infringements – Attribution – Parent company and subsidiaries – Unilateral conduct – Criteria
for assessment – Presumption of decisive influence exercised by the parent company over its wholly‐owned subsidiaries – Subsidiary
held by a holding company – Fact not sufficient to rebut the presumption (Art. 81(1) EC) (see paras 47-54, 58)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | APPLICATION for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2006) 4180 of 20 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F-1/38.121 – Fittings). |

**Operative part**

The Court:

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

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders Legris Industries SA to pay the costs. |
----

(2004/C 33 E/176)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1825/03

by Laura González Alvarez (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(23 May 2003)

Subject:   Environmental impact study on the Puente del Arco to El Condado section of the AS-17 highway (Asturias, Spain)

In its answer to Written Question E-1801/02 (1) on the same subject the Commission said that Annex IV of Directive 85/337/EEC (2), as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 (3), on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment lists the information to be provided by a developer, including an outline of the main alternatives studied and an indication of the main reasons for his choice, taking into account the environmental effects.

Since 5 August 2002, when the answer was received, has the Commission contacted the Spanish authorities to find out about the possible alternatives to the route concerned?

Is the Commission aware of the irreparable damage that may be caused by a route which does not take account of an alternative whose environmental impact would be minimal?

Since this is an urgent matter, what steps will the Commission take vis-à-vis the Spanish authorities in order to obtain the relevant information?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(10 July 2003)

As indicated in the answer to Written Question E-1801/02 by the Honourable Member, the road building projects are not, in principle, covered by Annexes I and II to Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985, as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997, on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment.

In any event, it appears that the project has undergone environmental impact assessment. It should be noted, however, that Directive 85/337/EEC does not specify the criteria by which a project is to be selected from among the alternative solutions which have been examined, provided the chosen project has been properly assessed.

In the absence of more specific indications of an infringement of Community law, the Commission did not feel it was expedient to contact the Spanish authorities in this instance.

Nonetheless, if the Commission receives additional evidence that Directive 85/337/EEC has not been properly enforced, it will ensure that Community law is complied with.

----

(1)OJ C 28 E, 6.2.2003, p. 137.

(2)OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.

(3)OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5.

----
STATE v. Charles Everette HINTON.

No. 449P11-13.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Feb. 19, 2016.

Charles E. Hinton, Nashville, for Hinton, Charles Everette.

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

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 11th of February 2016 by Petitioner for Inquiry into Restraints on Liberty; Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus; Relief from Judgments and Orders:

> "Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 19th of February 2016."
STATE v. Tony Levatte SMITH.

No. 237P15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

July 13, 2015.

Tony Levatte Smith, for Smith, Tony Levatte.

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

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 13th of July 2015 by Defendant for Appointment of Counsel:

> "Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 13th of July 2015."
----

(2004/C 33 E/107)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1344/03

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 April 2003)

Subject:   Eurodac and data protection

The Eurodac system of fingerprinting which was agreed by the European Union two years ago has finally been introduced as part of an attempt to ensure that those claiming asylum in one EU Member State do not, having gained entry to the Union, subsequently ‘shop around’ for asylum status in other Member States.

There are reports, however, that the information contained on the Eurodac files will not be available to the police forces of Member States but only to the immigration authorities under certain conditions because of the EU Data Protection laws. Are these reports correct, and, if so, which provisions specifically exclude information on non-EU citizens from being passed to national police forces?

Finally, if the police needed information on the identity or movement of suspected terrorists is it correct that the Eurodac information would be denied to them, and, if so, how is that consistent with the need to protect our citizens, the fight against terrorism or our international obligations to fight terrorism?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(4 June 2003)

As the Honourable Member is aware, the Eurodac system for comparing the fingerprints of asylum applicants was set up by Council Regulation (EC) No 2725/2000 of 11 December 2000 (1) for the sole purpose of enabling the Dublin Convention to be efficiently applied (2).

Article 1 of the Regulation states:

Paragraph 1:

Paragraph 3:

The authorised objectives listed exhaustively in Article 15(1) of the Dublin Convention are as follows:

These objectives are incorporated unamended in Article 21(1) of Council Regulation No (EC) 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national (3), which replaces the Dublin Convention.

Consequently, even if a police force were the authority within a given Member State responsible for performing one of the above tasks, the data in its possession could not be processed in Eurodac for purposes of police investigation.

The legislation currently in force would have to be amended to allow Eurodac to be used for other purposes while maintaining the necessary balance between public security requirements and the protection of freedoms.

----

(1)OJ L 316, 15.12.2000.

(2)OJ C 254, 19.8.1997.

(3)OJ L 50, 25.2.2003.

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-7079

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JULIO PEREZ-RODRIGUEZ,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Winston-Salem. James A. Beaty, Jr.,

Chief District Judge. (6:89-cr-00203-NCT-4)

Submitted: August 14, 2008 Decided: August 22, 2008

Before MICHAEL, Circuit Judge, and WILKINS and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Louis Carr Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, Thomas Norman

Cochran, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North

Carolina, for Appellant. Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United

States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
 2 

PER CURIAM:

Julio Perez-Rodriguez appeals the district court’s order

denying his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(2) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by

the district court. United States v. Perez-Rodriguez, No. 6:89-cr00203-NCT-4 (M.D.N.C. June 20, 2008). 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.

AFFIRMED
Carolyn Joyner DRIGGERS, individually and as co-trust and co-beneficiary of the Barney G. Joyner Family Trust, and Phyllis M. Joyner, by and through Carolyn Driggers as Attorney-in-Fact v. David Lee JOYNER and Ronald Dorrestein.

No. 353P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Jan. 28, 2016.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Plaintiff (Carolyn Joyner Driggers) on the 20th of October 2015 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:

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 28th of January 2016."

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Plaintiff (Carolyn Joyner Driggers) on the 20th of October 2015 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Wake County, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court of that County:

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 28th of January 2016."
# C_2008223EN.01000401.xml

| 30.8.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 223/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 223/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 17 July 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Rebublic

(Case C-132/06) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Article 10 EC - Sixth VAT Directive - Obligations under domestic rules - Control of taxable transactions - Amnesty)

(2008/C 223/05)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. Traversa and M. Afonso, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Italian Rebublic (represented by: I. Braguglia, Agent and G. De Bellis, avvocato dello Stato)

Defendant:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 2 and 22 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Obligations under the internal system — National law waiving the verification of taxable transactions effected in the course of a series of tax years

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by providing in Articles 8 and 9 of Law No 289 of 27 December 2002 relating to the provisions for drawing up the annual and pluriannual budget of the State (Finance Law for 2003) (legge n. 289, disposizioni per la formazione del bilancio annuale e pluriennale dello Stato (legge finanziaria 2003)) for a general and indiscriminate waiver of verification of taxable transactions effected in a series of tax years, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2 and 22 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, and Article 10 EC. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by providing in Articles 8 and 9 of Law No 289 of 27 December 2002 relating to the provisions for drawing up the annual and pluriannual budget of the State (Finance Law for 2003) (legge n. 289, disposizioni per la formazione del bilancio annuale e pluriennale dello Stato (legge finanziaria 2003)) for a general and indiscriminate waiver of verification of taxable transactions effected in a series of tax years, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2 and 22 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, and Article 10 EC.

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

2.

Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 108, 6.5.2006.

1

---
PHILLIPS and Jordan, Inc. v. Jeffrey L. BOSTIC, Michael Hartnett, and Joseph E. Bostic, Jr.

No. 75P16.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 13, 2016.

Zeyland G. McKinney, Jr., Robbinsville, for Phillips and Jordan, Inc.

Eric W. Stiles, Robbinsville, for Phillips and Jordan, Inc.

D. Erik Albright, for Hartnett, Michael.

Matthew N. Leerberg, Raleigh, for Hartnett, Michael.

Christine L. Myatt, Greensboro, for Bostic, Jeffrey L.

David S. Pokela, Greensboro, for Bostic, Jeffrey L.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 7th of March 2016 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 13th of April 2016."
Sammy R. PRUETT, Plaintiff v. Joel D. BINGHAM and Jean's Bus Service, Inc., Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiffs v. Gregory Alan Wiggins, Matthew Brackett, and Mountain Home Fire & Rescue Department, Inc., Third-Party Defendants.

No. 34A15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 18, 2016.

Davis & Hamrick, LLP, Winston-Salem, by Ann C. Rowe and H. Lee Davis, Jr., for defendants and third-party plaintiff-appellants.

Michael E. Casterline ; Asheville and Brazil & Burke, P.A., by Meghann K. Burke and W.O. Brazil, III, Asheville, for third-party defendant-appellees Matthew Brackett and Mountain Home Fire & Rescue Department, Inc.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.
# CE2004084EN.01004401.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/44

---

(2004/C 84 E/0049)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3015/03

by Armando Cossutta (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(14 October 2003)

Subject:   Third-party insurance for cars and the new Code

Subject:

In Italy the recent introduction of new sanctions in connection with the Highway Code has radically altered the behaviour of Italian drivers and drastically reduced the number of accidents reported.

Four consumers' associations in Italy (Aduc, Codacons, Adusbef and Federconsumatori) point out that the sharp fall in the number of claims (which insurers say are the cause of the rising cost of third-party insurance) should lead to a fall in the cost of car insurance. The provisions of the new Highway Code have cut the number of accidents by 20 % and the number of people injured by 40 %, which has eased the burden on insurance companies.

However, illogically, the costs of third-party insurance in Italy continue to rise and average rates in other European countries are 20 % lower.

In the light of this, does not the Commission consider that the rise in (compulsory) third-party insurance premiums in Italy is unjustified?

Does it intend to try to persuade the Italian government to take urgent measures to lower the price of third-party insurance?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-3014/03 and E-3015/03

given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(11 November 2003)

(11 November 2003)

The Honourable Member is requested to refer to the Commission's answers to written questions P-0592/02 from Ms Thyssen (1), E-1522/03 from the Honourable Member (2) and E-2405/03, E-2406/03 and E-2407/03 from Mr Staes (3). These replies continue to reflect the Commission's position.

1

2

3

---

(1)  OJ C 301 E, 5.12.2002, p. 47.

1

(2)  OJ C 33 E, 6.2.2004, p. 128.

2

(3)  OJ C 78 E, 27.3.2004, p. 405.

3

---
Exhibit 99.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of i3 Mobile, Inc. (the Company) for the year ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, Edward J. Fletcher, Senior Vice President, Finance of the Company, certify, 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; and
| | --- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|      
|------
|By:   
|Name: 
|Title:
|      

April 8, 2003