alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2009044EN.01000502.xml

| 21.2.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 December 2008 — Masdar (UK) Ltd v Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-47/07 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Second paragraph of Article 288 EC - Action alleging unjust enrichment on the part of the Community - Community assistance programmes - Irregularities on the part of the co-contractor of the Commission - Services provided by a subcontractor - Non-payment - Risks inherent in economic activities - Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations - Duty of care of the Community administration)

(2009/C 44/08)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Masdar (UK) Ltd (represented by: A.P. Bentley, QC, and P. Green, barrister)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Enegren and M. Wilderspin, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 16 November 2006 in Case T-333/03 Masdar UK Ltd v Commission of the European Communities, dismissing as unfounded an action for damages in respect of loss allegedly suffered by the applicant following refusal by the Commission to pay it for services which it claims to have provided in connection with two projects under the TACIS Programme in Moldavia and Russia.

Masdar UK Ltd

Commission of the European Communities

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Masdar (UK) Ltd to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Masdar (UK) Ltd to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 82, 14.4.2007.

1

---
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3711 Considered and Passed Senate (CPS)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3711

  To authorize a cost of living adjustment for the Federal judiciary.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           November 20, 2008

    Mr. Reid (for himself, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Hatch, Mr. 
 Grassley, Mrs. Feinstein, and Mr. Bingaman) introduced the following 
bill; which was read twice, considered, read the third time, and passed

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To authorize a cost of living adjustment for the Federal judiciary.

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

SECTION 1. COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENT FOR THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY.

    Pursuant to section 140 of Public Law 97-92, justices and judges of 
the United States are authorized during fiscal year 2009 to receive a 
salary adjustment in accordance with section 461 of title 28, United 
States Code.
                                 <all>
```
CENTOR, INC., Plaintiff, v. MAKINO INC., et al., Defendants.

No. COA15-863.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

May 17, 2016.

**CASE REPORTED WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Remanded.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 24, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136405 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. SHELLY M. KRASTES, Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff-Appellant, Justices 

and 

AUTO CLUB OF MICHIGAN,

 Intervening Plaintiff, 

v SC: 136405 

 COA: 276545 
 WCAC: 02-000351 

HASELEY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,

INC., RELIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY, 

INC., and MICHIGAN PROPERTY &

GUARANTY ASSOCIATION,

Defendants-Appellees, 

and 

GRAYCOR SERVICES, AMERICAN RISK 

FUNDING INSURANCE COMPANY, FLUOR 

CORPORATION, and CONTINENTAL 

CASUALTY COMPANY,

 Defendants. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 10, 2008 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

KELLY, J., would grant leave to appeal. 

0917 

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 24, 2008 

 Clerk
**Judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 2 December 2008 – Nuova Agricast and Cofra v Commission**

**(Cases T-362/05 and T-363/05)**

Non-contractual liability of the Community – Aid scheme provided for under Italian legislation – Scheme declared compatible with the common market – Transitional measure – Certain undertakings excluded – Principle of protection of legitimate expectations – Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals – None

1.                     *Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Unlawfulness – Damage – Causal link (Art. 288, second para., EC) (see paras 54, 96-97)*

2.                     *Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Sufficiently serious breach of a rule conferring rights on individuals (Art. 288,
second para., EC) (see para 76)*

3.                     *State aid – General aid scheme approved by the Commission – Individual aid falling within the temporal scope of that scheme
– Determination – Date of the legally binding measure requiring the competent national authority to grant the aid (Art. 87
EC) (see paras 80-82)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ACTION for damages for the loss allegedly suffered by the applicants as a result of the adoption by the Commission of the Decision of 12 July 2000 declaring compatible with the common market an aid scheme for investment in the less-favoured regions of Italy (State aid No 715/1999 – Italy (SG 2000 D/105754)) and as a result of the Commission’s conduct during the procedure which preceded the adoption of that decision. |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Joins Case T-362/05 and T-363/05 for the purposes of the judgment; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Dismisses the actions; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 3. | | Orders Nuova Agricast Srl to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission in Case T-362/05; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 4. | | Orders Cofra Srl to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission in Case T-363/05. |
**Order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 9 January 2006 − Finland v Commission**

**(Case T-177/05)**

Procedural issues – Objection of inadmissibility – Act not producing binding legal effects – European Communities’ own resources – Infringement proceedings – Interest for delayed entry provided for in Article 11 of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 – Negotiation of an agreement on conditional payment

1.                     *Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Measures producing binding legal effects (Art. 230 EC) (see para. 30)*

2.                     *Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Measures producing binding legal effects (Art. 230 EC; Council Regulation No
1150/2000) (see para. 32)*

3.                     *European Communities’ own resources – Establishment and making available by the Member States (Council Regulation No 1150/2000)
(see para. 33)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ACTION for the annulment of the Commission decision (Budget Directorate-General) contained in the letter of 28 February 2005 and in the confirmatory letter of 25 April 2005, whereby the Commission refused to enter into negotiations with the Republic of Finland on the conditional payment of retroactive duties, plus default interest up to the date of payment, which the Commission claimed from the Republic of Finland in the context of infringement proceedings 2003/2180, brought under Article 226 EC |

**Operative part**

The Court:

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

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders the Republic of Finland to pay the costs. |
Exhibit 21.1

                      SUBSIDIARIES OF RADICA GAMES LIMITED

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                              State or Country
  Name of Subsidiary                                         in Which Organized
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  UNITED STATES
<S>                                                           <C>
  Radica Enterprises Ltd                                      Nevada
  (Operates as Radica USA Ltd)

  Disc., Inc.                                                 Nevada
  (Operates as Radica Innovations)


  INTERNATIONAL

  Radica Limited                                              Hong Kong
    -  Radica China Ltd                                       British Virgin Islands
          - Dongguan Radica Games Manufactory Co. Ltd         People's Republic of China
    -  RadMex S.A. de C.V. (dormant)                          Mexico

  Radica Sales (HK) Ltd                                       Hong Kong

  Radica Innovations (UK) Ltd                                 UK

  Radica Europe Ltd                                           UK
    -  Leda Media Products Ltd                                UK
          -  LMP (HK) Ltd                                     Hong Kong

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

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 Trans Energy, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, James K. Abcouwer, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the            best of my knowledge and belief:

 

(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.

 

| /s/ | JAMES K. ABCOUWER |
|-----|-------------------|

James K. Abcouwer

Chief Executive Officer

 

March 31, 2010

 

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 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon            request. The foregoing certifications are accompanying the Company's Form 10-K solely pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-K or as a separate disclosure document.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Biocoral,
Inc. and Subsidiaries and is qualified in it's entirety be reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     US$
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         1,344,608
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  358,600
<ALLOWANCES>                                   262,100
<INVENTORY>                                    197,500
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               1,971,147
<PP&E>                                         277,867
<DEPRECIATION>                                 230,030
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 2,329,845
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,322,488
<BONDS>                                        2,772,211
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       7,924
<OTHER-SE>                                     (1,092,707)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   2,329,845
<SALES>                                        405,900
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               405,900
<CGS>                                          142,700
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  142,700
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               1,371,201
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             89,379
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,197,380)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,197,380)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,197,386)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        


</TABLE>
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 9, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136600 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: 136600 

 COA: 283799 

Jackson CC: 06-004643-FH;

06-004752-FH; 06-004760-FH

TODD ALAN BINSCHUS, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 28, 2008 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of 

granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for 

consideration as on leave granted. 

WEAVER, J., would deny leave to appeal. 

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
# C_2009006EN.01004302.xml

| 10.1.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.1.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/43

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 17 November 2008 — Reitz and von Gadomski v OHIM (CMD-CLINIC)

(Case T-241/06) (1)

1

(2009/C 6/85)

Language of the case: German

Language of the case: German

The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 261, 28.10.2006.

1

---
# C_2012006EN.01000903.xml

| 7.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/9

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 November 2011 — RKW and JM Gesellschaft für industrielle Beteiligungen v Commission

(Joined Cases T-55/06 and T-66/06) (1)

1

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Plastic industrial bags sector - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Fines - Guidelines for the calculation of fines - Maximum limit of 10 % of turnover - Implementation - Legality - Proportionality - Equal treatment - Single and continuous infringement - Attenuating circumstances - Exclusively passive role - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based - Imputability of unlawful conduct)

2012/C 6/12

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicants: RKW SE, formerly RKW AG Rheinische Kunststoffwerke (Worms, Germany), and JM Gesellschaft für industrielle Beteiligungen mbH & Co. KGaA (Worms) (represented by: H.-J. Hellmann, lawyer)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and R. Sauer, acting as Agents, assisted by M. Núñez-Müller, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2005) 4634 final of 30 November 2005 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/F/38.354 — Industrial bags) and, in the alternative, for reduction of the fine imposed on the applicants.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders RKW SE and JM Gesellschaft für industrielle Beteiligungen mbH & Co. KGaA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders RKW SE and JM Gesellschaft für industrielle Beteiligungen mbH & Co. KGaA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 96, 22.4.2006.

1

---
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Case No. 5D2023-1533

LT Case No. 2022-CF-006159-A

____________________________

DAMON TREYVON LIGON,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Mark J. Borello, Judge.

Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, and Victoria Rose Cordero, 

Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Virginia Harris, Assistant 

Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

July 9, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

MAKAR, LAMBERT, and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.
2

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM 10-K
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           1,018
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,152
<ALLOWANCES>                                       373
<INVENTORY>                                     12,139
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                24,577
<PP&E>                                           9,089
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,643
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  30,904
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,903
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        18,644
<OTHER-SE>                                       4,820
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    30,904
<SALES>                                         41,276
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                41,276
<CGS>                                           19,526
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   19,526
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                20,635
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   133
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 304
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,313
<INCOME-TAX>                                       484
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                829
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       829
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Chief Judge Felton, Judges Humphreys and Beales 

WILLARD R. MEADOWS 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* 

v. Record No. 2648-07-3 PER CURIAM 

SEPTEMBER 16, 2008 

DANIEL W. SMITH 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF GILES COUNTY 

Brett L. Geisler, Judge 

 (Willard R. Meadows, pro se, on brief). 

 No brief for appellee. 

 Willard R. Meadows appeals from an order of the trial court entered on October 11, 2007 

finding him in contempt of court for violating previous orders of the court. On appeal, Meadows 

argues the trial court erred by: (1) finding the evidence was sufficient to show he was in contempt 

of prior court orders; (2) reopening Chancery Case No. 5658; and (3) not granting him the right to 

subpoena witnesses. Upon reviewing the record and opening brief, we conclude that this appeal is 

without merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the trial court’s decision. See Rule 5A:27. 

 Meadows’ opening brief contains no argument, principles of law, or authorities related to 

his Questions Presented Nos. I and III. In Jay v. Commonwealth, 275 Va. 510, 520, 659 S.E.2d 

311, 317 (2008), the Supreme Court announced that when a party’s “failure to strictly adhere to 

the requirements of Rule 5A:20(e)” is significant, “the Court of Appeals may . . . treat a question 

presented as waived.” We find Meadows’ failure to comply with Rule 5A:20(e) is significant. 

Accordingly, Questions Presented Nos. I and III are waived. 

 *

 Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. 
- 2 - 

 In Question Presented No. II, Meadows asserts the trial court erred by reopening 

Chancery Case No. 5658 “for a water right from Meadows’ land,” asserting that the original 

complainants lost their water rights in a prior case. However, the October 11, 2007 order states 

that Meadows was found in contempt because he violated previous court orders “by preventing 

and/or impeding [Daniel W. Smith] from inspecting, maintaining and/or repairing the water 

supply system located on [Meadows’] property.” Therefore, the trial court did not reopen the 

case to grant Smith water rights from Meadows’ land. Accordingly, Meadows’ argument is 

without merit. 

 On May 13, 2008, Meadows filed an objection and requested that this Court reconsider 

its order of April 28, 2008 denying his request that we return the record to the trial court. Upon 

reconsideration thereof, the request is denied. 

 Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s decision. 

 Affirmed.