alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2009113EN.01000601.xml

| 16.5.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 113/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.5.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 113/6

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 March 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

(Case C-275/07) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - External Community transit - TIR Carnets - Customs duties - Own resources of the Communities - Making available - Time-limits - Default interest - Accounting rules)

2009/C 113/10

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Wilms, M. Velardo and D. Recchia, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: I.M. Braguglia and G. Albenzio, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 8 and 11 of Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 of 29 May 1989 implementing Decision 88/376/EEC, Euratom on the system of the Communities' own resources (OJ 1989 L 155, p. 1) and Article 6(2)(a) thereof, replaced as from 30 May 2000 by Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 of 22 May 2000 implementing Decision 94/728/EC, Euratom on the system of the Communities' own resources (OJ 2000 L 130, p.1) — Accounting rules — Default interest due for late payment of own resources

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action.

| 2. | Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 199, 25.8.2007.

1

---
# CE2004078EN.01045401.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/454 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/454

---

(2004/C 78 E/0480)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3012/03

by Jaime Valdivielso de Cué (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 October 2003)

Subject:   Wine

Subject:

Amidst the tortuous negotiations over alcoholic beverages and foods, has the Commission been able to discuss with the other members of the WTO the list of geographical indications that the European Union would like to see protected internationally?

This list includes several names of wine, such as Rioja, and other food products.

Does the Commission believe that it will be possible to reach an agreement in this area, given the strong resistance shown by countries like the United States, who have grown used to freely misappropriating Community names?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(18 November 2003)

(18 November 2003)

The Community presented its short list of geographical indications in the World Trade Organisation (WTO) agriculture negotiations at the end of August 2003 in Geneva. Given the short term between its submission to the WTO and the Fifth Ministerial Conference, there was no time to discuss the list before Cancun. Unfortunately, due to the course of events in the Conference, it was not possible to discuss it in Cancun.

The Commission considers that this is a very important issue in order to guarantee effective protection of geographical names which are being abused worldwide. It will, therefore, continue asking for this matter to be an integral part of the negotiations in Geneva, though the degree of acceptance of this proposal by other WTO Members appears to be low at this stage.

---
# C_2011145EN.01002201.xml

| 14.5.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 145/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.5.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 145/22

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2011 — IBP and International Building Products France v Commission

(Case T-384/06) (1)

1

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Copper and copper alloy fittings sector - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Duration of participation in the infringement - Fines - Aggravating circumstances)

2011/C 145/33

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicants: IBP Ltd (Tipton, United Kingdom); and International Building Products France SA (Sartrouville, France) (represented by: M. Clough QC and A. Aldred, Solicitor)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and V. Bottka, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

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) and also, in the alternative, for a reduction in the fine imposed on the applicants in that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders IBP Ltd and International Building Products France SA to bear their own costs and to pay 80 % of the European Commission’s costs, and also to bear their own costs and to pay the Commission’s costs relating to the interim measures proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders IBP Ltd and International Building Products France SA to bear their own costs and to pay 80 % of the European Commission’s costs, and also to bear their own costs and to pay the Commission’s costs relating to the interim measures proceedings;

| 3. | Orders the Commission to bear 20 % of its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Commission to bear 20 % of its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 20, 27.1.2007.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         175,220
<SECURITIES>                                    34,958
<RECEIVABLES>                                  394,008
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               817,320
<PP&E>                                         498,853
<DEPRECIATION>                                 170,894
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,553,160
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          519,181
<BONDS>                                         12,398
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,148
<OTHER-SE>                                     939,341
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,391,425
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,164,478
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,055,509
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                14,787
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,966
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 85,216
<INCOME-TAX>                                    36,213
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             49,003
<DISCONTINUED>                                  25,970
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    74,973
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.66
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.65


</TABLE>
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 22, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136729 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Stephen J. Markman, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices 

v SC: 136729 

 COA: 279555 

Saginaw CC: 06-027888-FH 

FLOYD DOUGLAS ROEBUCK,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 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. 

p0915 

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 22, 2008 

 Clerk
EXHIBIT 32.1




CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO


18 U.S.C. § 1350


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT
TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002




In connection with the Quarterly Report
on Form 10-Q of Novelos Therapeutics, Inc., (the “Company”) for the quarter
ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the “Report”), we, Harry S. Palmin, President and Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, and Joanne M. Protano, Vice President, Chief Financial
Officer and Treasurer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to our
knowledge, 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.




/s/ Harry S.
      PalminHarry S.
    PalminPresident, Chief Executive Officer
      (Principal Executive Officer)Date: August 6,
      2009/s/ Joanne M.
      ProtanoJoanne M.
      ProtanoChief Financial Officer (Principal
      Financial and Accounting Officer)Date: August 6,
      2009
# C_2009032EN.01002602.xml

| 7.2.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 32/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 32/26

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 December 2008 — Tomorrow Focus v OHIM — Information Builders (Tomorrow Focus)

(Case T-90/06) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark Tomorrow Focus - Earlier Community figurative mark FOCUS - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

(2009/C 32/48)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Tomorrow Focus AG (Munich, Germany) (represented initially by U. Gürtler, then by J. Berlinger)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by G. Schneider, then by G. Schneider and S. Schäffner, agents)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Information Builders (Netherlands) BV (Amstelveen, Netherlands)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 January 2006 (Case R 116/2005-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Information Builders (Netherlands) BV and Tomorrow Focus AG.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

dismisses the action;

| 2. | orders Tomorrow Focus AG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

orders Tomorrow Focus AG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 108, 6.5.2006.

1

---
# C_2008051EN.01002502.xml

| 23.2.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/25

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 18 December 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

(Case C-85/07) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2000/60/EC - Articles 5(1) and 15(2) - Community action in the field of water policy - River basin district - Summary report and analyses - Communication thereof - None)

(2008/C 51/41)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: S. Pardo Quintillán and D. Recchia, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendants: Italian Republic (represented by: I. Braguglia, Agent and G. Fiengo, lawyer)

Defendants:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 5(1) and 15(2) of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (OJ 2000 L 327, p. 1) — Failure to submit summary reports on the analyses required under Article 5 as regards certain river basin districts — Failure to carry out the analyses and studies provided for in Article 5(1) of that directive

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, in respect of the pilot river basin district of the River Serchio and a part of the river basin districts of the Eastern Alps and the Northern, Central and Southern Apennines, by failing to submit a summary report on the analyses required under Article 5(1) of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy, as provided for in Article 15(2) thereof, and by failing to carry out the analyses and the study referred to in Article 5(1) thereof, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 5(1) and 15(2) of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, in respect of the pilot river basin district of the River Serchio and a part of the river basin districts of the Eastern Alps and the Northern, Central and Southern Apennines, by failing to submit a summary report on the analyses required under Article 5(1) of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy, as provided for in Article 15(2) thereof, and by failing to carry out the analyses and the study referred to in Article 5(1) thereof, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 5(1) and 15(2) of that directive;

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

2.

Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 95, 28.4.2007.

1

---
STATE of North Carolina v. Linwood Fred CLAY.

No. COA15-987.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

April 19, 2016.

**CASE REPORTED WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

No Error.
Exhibit 10.6 - SUI Anti-Hedging Policy






Sun Communities, Inc.
Policy Prohibiting Hedging




The directors and executive officers of Sun Communities, Inc., a Maryland corporation (the “Company”), who are subject to the reporting provisions and trading restrictions of Section 16 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, may not trade in any interest or position relating to the future price of the Company’s securities, such as a put, call or short sale.




Effective as of July 14, 2014
STATE of North Carolina v. Robert Lee Earl JOE.

No. COA15-878.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

May 10, 2016.

**CASE REPORTED WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Vacated and Remanded.
Exhibit 32.2

SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

In connection with the Annual Report of enherent Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, James C. Minerly, Senior Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, adopted
as 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 result of operations of the Company.





A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting, the signature that appears in typed form within the
electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to enherent Corp. and will be retained by enherent Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

---

QuickLinks
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    Exhibit 10.2

                                   AGREEMENT

            AGREEMENT, dated as of January 30, 1998 between Dime Bancorp, Inc.,
a Delaware corporation having its principal executive offices at 589 Fifth
Avenue, New York, New York 10017 (the "Company"), and LAWRENCE J. TOAL (the
"Officer").

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

            A. The Dime Savings Bank of New York, FSB (the "Bank"), a
wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company, has entered into an employment agreement
of even date herewith with the Officer (the "Employment Agreement").

            B. The Company is desirous of having the Bank employ the Officer
upon the terms and conditions set forth in the Employment Agreement.

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

            Therefore, the Company and the Officer, intending to be legally
bound, agree that the Company shall be jointly and severally liable with the
Bank with respect to any benefits or payments due under the Employment Agreement
to the Officer, and the Company agrees to honor any such obligations that are
not fulfilled by the Bank.

                                                DIME BANCORP, INC.


                                                By:/s/IRA T. WENDER
                                                   ---------------------------
                                                     Name:
                                                     Title:

                                                /s/LAWRENCE J. TOAL
                                                ------------------------------
                                                LAWRENCE J. TOAL
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**








**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 annual report of Rockport Healthcare Group, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the year ended March 31, 2005, as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Larry
      K. Hinson, Principal Accounting 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 to the best of my knowledge:





(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.











/s/
      Larry K. Hinson __________________


Larry
      K.
      Hinson,


Principal
      Accounting Officer


June
      29,
      2005








A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      Rockport Healthcare Group, Inc. and will be retained by Rockport Healthcare
      Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
      staff
      upon request.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 595 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 595

To amend the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 
to strike a provision relating to modifications in reporting frequency.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 14, 2007

 Mr. Lautenberg (for himself, Mrs. Boxer, and Mr. Menendez) introduced 
the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee 
                    on Environment and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 
to strike a provision relating to modifications in reporting frequency.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Toxic Right-to-Know Protection 
Act''.

SEC. 2. MODIFICATIONS IN REPORTING FREQUENCY.

    (a) In General.--Section 313 of the Emergency Planning and 
Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (42 U.S.C. 11023) is amended--
            (1) by striking subsection (i); and
            (2) by redesignating subsections (j) through (l) as 
        subsections (i) through (k), respectively.
    (b) Conforming Amendments.--Sections 322(h)(2) and 326(a)(1)(B)(iv) 
of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (42 
U.S.C. 11042(h)(2), 11046(a)(1)(B)(iv)) are amended by striking 
``313(j)'' each place it appears and inserting ``313(i)''.

SEC. 3. REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO TOXICS RELEASE INVENTORY.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law--
            (1) the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
        Agency (referred to in this section as the ``Administrator'') 
        shall establish the eligibility threshold regarding the use of 
        a form A certification statement under the Toxics Release 
        Inventory Program established under the Emergency Planning and 
        Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (42 U.S.C. 11001 et seq.) 
        at not greater than 500 pounds for nonpersistent 
        bioaccumulative and toxic chemicals; and
            (2) the use of a form A certification statement described 
        in paragraph (1), or any equivalent successor to the statement, 
        shall be prohibited with respect to any chemical identified by 
        the Administrator as a chemical of special concern under 
        section 372.28 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations (or a 
        successor regulation).
                                 <all>
```
1... This proceeding arises out of Cause No. DC-02-268(A), styled Eustorgio Guzman

Resendez v. Juan Garcia and Heriberto Silva, filed in the 229th Judicial District Court, Starr

County, Texas. 

i i i i i i

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-08-00613-CV

IN RE Eustorgio RESENDEZ

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Alma L. López, Chief Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Rebecca Simmons, Justice

Delivered and Filed: September 24, 2008

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

Relator Eustorgio Resendez has filed a petition for writ of mandamus complaining of the

district court’s failure to set a hearing date to hear his petition for declaratory judgment consistent

with this Court’s opinion in Resendez v. Garcia, No. 04-05-00081-CV, 2005 WL 2654069 (Tex.

App.—San Antonio October 19, 2005, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.), which reversed and remanded

the case to the district court. Relator’s burden in a mandamus proceeding is to provide this court

with a record sufficient to establish his right to relief. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex.
04-08-00613-CV

-2-

1992); see also TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(j), 52.7(a). Relator has not provided this court with a record

upon which mandamus relief may be granted. Because relator is not entitled to the reliefsought, the

petition is denied. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). 

Additionally, relator filed an Application for Leave to File Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

No leave is required to file a petition for a writ of mandamus in this court. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.

Therefore, relator’s motion for leave to file is denied as moot. 

PER CURIAM