alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2008142EN.01001001.xml

| 7.6.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/10

---

Order of the Court of 8 April 2008 — Saint-Gobain Glass Deutschland GmbH v Fels-Werke GmbH, Spenner-Zement GmbH & Co KG, Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-503/07 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Directive 2003/87/EC - Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading - Integrated pollution prevention and reduction - Federal Republic of Germany - Allocation of allowances - Period 2008-2012 - Conditions - Individual concern - Inadmissibility - Right to be heard by a court - Right to a fair hearing)

(2008/C 142/15)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Saint-Gobain Glass Deutschland GmbH (represented by: H. Posser and S. Altenschmidt, Rechtsanwälte)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Fels-Werke GmbH, Spenner-Zement GmbH & Co KG, Commission of the European Communities (represented by: U. Wölker, Agent)

Other parties to the proceedings:

Re:

Appeal brought against the Order of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 11 September 2007 in Case T-28/07 Fels-Werke and Others v Commission, by which the Court dismissed as inadmissible the action seeking partial annulment of the Commission Decision of 29 November 2006 concerning the national allocation plan for the allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances notified by the Federal Republic of Germany for the period from 2008 to 2012 in accordance with Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32) — Requirement to be individually concerned by the contested decision — Right to be heard by a court and right to a fair hearing

Fels-Werke and Others

Commission

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Saint-Gobain Glass Deutschland GmbH is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Saint-Gobain Glass Deutschland GmbH is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 64, 8.3.2008.

1

---
# CE2004070EN.01008001.xml

| 20.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 70/80 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 70/80

---

(2004/C 70 E/082)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2205/03

by Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(2 July 2003)

Subject:   Continuation of OLAF's investigations into Eurostat

Subject:

On 19 March 2003 the European Anti-Fraud Office, OLAF, filed charges with the Paris Public Prosecutor's Office against Planistat Europe SA, and drew the attention of the judicial authorities to the possible involvement of Eurostat Director-General Yves Franchet and Eurostat Director Daniel Byk in fraudulent activities. The charges were filed in France, not least because both Eurostat officials hold French nationality.

Although the Paris authorities had by then already opened proceedings, the Commission called on OLAF, in press releases of 19 and 21 May 2003, to continue with its investigations and take statements from the two officials.

Has the Commission satisfied itself that such parallel investigations will not obstruct or compromise the work of the French judicial authorities?

Was the agreement of the French judicial authorities obtained for continuing with the OLAF investigations in this matter?

How does the Commission respond to the objection that continuing the OLAF investigations in this case, after proceedings had been brought by the Paris Public Prosecutor, served no purpose, because the necessary objectivity no longer applied and the impression could be created that the intention was simply to collect additional proof for accusations that had already been referred to the judicial authorities?

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(22 September 2003)

(22 September 2003)

The Datashops file is in two parts: an external part concerning the activities of Planistat Europe SA and an internal part concerning Community officials.

The Commission has been informed by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) that the charges filed with the Paris Public Prosecutor's Office on 19 March 2003 concerned the external part of the file.

Since the internal part of the file was not referred to the French judicial authorities, OLAF was not required to seek the latter's agreement for continuing its internal investigation.

---
| 1.   | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of CKE Restaurants, Inc.; and |
|----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2.   | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report. |
|----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | /s/ ANDREW F. PUZDER       |
|--------|----------------------------|
|   | Andrew F. Puzder |
|   | Chief Executive Officer    |
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 179 (Friday, September 16, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 54767]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-18454]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[WY-920-1310-01; WYW146283]


Notice of Proposed Reinstatement of Terminated Oil and Gas Lease

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of proposed reinstatement of terminated oil and gas 
lease.

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

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of 30 U.S.C. 188(d) and (e), and 43 CFR 
3108.2-3(a) and (b)(1), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) received a 
petition for reinstatement of oil and gas lease WYW146283 from Gulf 
Exploration LLC for lands in Converse County, Wyoming. The petition was 
filed on time and was accompanied by all the rentals due since the date 
the lease terminated under the law.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bureau of Land Management, Pamela J. 
Lewis, Chief, Fluid Minerals Adjudication, at (307) 775-6176.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The lessee has agreed to the amended lease 
terms for rentals and royalties at rates of $10.00 per acre or fraction 
thereof, per year and 16\2/3\ percent, respectively. The lessee has 
paid the required $500 administrative fee and $166 to reimburse the 
Department for the cost of this Federal Register notice. The lessee has 
met all the requirements for reinstatement of the lease as set out in 
Section 31(d) and (e) of the Mineral Lands Leasing Act of 1920 (30 
U.S.C. 188), and the Bureau of Land Management is proposing to 
reinstate lease WYW146283 effective October 1, 2004, under the original 
terms and conditions of the lease and the increased rental and royalty 
rates cited above. BLM has not issued a valid lease affecting the 
lands.

Pamela J. Lewis,
Chief, Fluid Minerals Adjudication.
[FR Doc. 05-18454 Filed 9-15-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-22-P
STATE of North Carolina v. Calvin Renard CARTER, Defendant.

No. COA15-1234.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

May 3, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Vacated and Remanded.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6757

SHAWN K. BRITT,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

DIRECTOR, VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Walter D. Kelley, Jr., District

Judge. (2:07-cv-00379-WDK-TEM)

Submitted: August 28, 2008 Decided: September 12, 2008

Before TRAXLER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Shawn K. Britt, Appellant Pro Se. Kathleen Beatty Martin, Senior

Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Shawn K. Britt seeks to appeal the district court’s order

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying

relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not

appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate

of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the

denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000).

A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable

jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims

by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any

dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise

debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Britt has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny a

certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
**Exhibit32.2**

 

**Certificationof Chief Financial Officer**

**Pursuantto 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,**

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

 

In connection with the periodic report of Westaff, Inc., a Delawarecorporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended July 10,2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I,Dirk A. Sodestrom, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of theCompany, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18,Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that:

 

(1)                                  the Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and

 

(2)                                  the informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company at the dates andfor the periods indicated.

 

 
| Date: August 24, 2004 |   |                                              |
|----------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------|
|                       |   |                                              |
|                       | By:    | /s/ Dirk A.  Sodestrom                            |   |
|                       |   | Dirk A.  Sodestrom                                |   |
|                       |   | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |

 

A signed original of this written statementrequired by Section 906has been provided to Westaff, Inc. and will be retained by Westaff, Inc. andfurnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      Exhibit 23





                          Independent Auditors' Consent


The Board of Directors
Dime Bancorp, Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Nos.
33-88552, 33-88554, 33-88556, 33-88558, 33-88560, 33-88564, 33-88566, 333-04477,
333-26609, 333-26777, 333-35565, 333-48127, 333-51941, 333-64509, 333-75103,
333-77317, 333-88071 and 333-89901) on Form S-8 of Dime Bancorp, Inc. of our
report dated January 20, 2000, except for note 23 and note 28, which are as of
March 23, 2000 relating to the consolidated statements of financial condition of
Dime Bancorp, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1999 and 1998, and the
related consolidated statements of income, changes in stockholders' equity, cash
flows and comprehensive income for each of the years in the three-year period
ended December 31, 1999, which report appears in the December 31, 1999 Annual
Report on Form 10-K/A of Dime Bancorp, Inc.



/s/ KPMG LLP



New York, New York
March 30, 2000
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 RAIT Financial Trust (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Daniel G. Cohen, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 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/ Daniel G. Cohen                    
|                  |  |  |  | Daniel G. Cohen Chief Executive
Officer
|February 29, 2008 |  |  |  |
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-20064

Conference Calendar

 

ROQUE ARANDA,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

CAPTAIN SIMPSON; HUNT, Sergeant; MICHAEL WILSON; D. DUKE;

SUBSTITUTE COUNSEL WYNNE UNIT,

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-00-CV-3253

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

June 13, 2001

Before WIENER, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Roque Aranda, Texas prisoner # 805045, appeals the district

court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Aranda has failed to brief the relevant

issue, as he has provided neither argument nor authorities to

show that the district court erred in dismissing his suit. 

See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). 
No. 01-20064

-2-

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed as frivolous. 5th Cir. 

R. 42.2. 

The three-strikes provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)

"prohibits a prisoner from proceeding IFP if he has had three

actions or appeals dismissed for frivolousness, maliciousness, or

failure to state a claim." Carson v. Johnson, 112 F.3d 818, 819

(5th Cir. 1997)(citing Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 385

(5th Cir. 1996)). Aranda has previously had at least five

strikes against him. Aranda v. Key, No. 00-10849 (5th Cir. Feb.

14, 2001)(imposing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) bar); Aranda v. Shaw, No.

00-10844 (5th Cir. Feb. 14, 2001)(imposing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)

bar); Aranda v. Millsaps, No. 99-11394 (5th Cir. Aug. 29, 2000). 

Additionally, Aranda has recently been reminded of the § 1915(g)

bar in five other appeals which were before this court. See

Aranda v. Cason, No. 00-10848 (5th Cir. Apr. 12, 2001); Aranda v.

Wilson, No. 00-21035 (5th Cir. Apr. 12, 2001); Aranda v. Hirsch,

No. 00-10850 (5th Cir. Apr. 12, 2001); Aranda v. Scott, No. 00-

21129 (5th Cir. Apr. 12, 2001); Aranda v. Wilson, No. 00-20968

(5th Cir. Apr. 12, 2001). Aranda filed this appeal before the 

§ 1915(g) bar was imposed. He is reminded that he may no longer

proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while he is

incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under

imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(g). 

 APPEAL DISMISSED.
# CE2004078EN.01025601.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/256 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/256

---

(2004/C 78 E/0257)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3304/03

by Claude Moraes (PSE) to the Commission

(10 November 2003)

Subject:   Monitoring racial and ethnic discrimination at border controls

Subject:

Could the Commission please tell me whether there has been any discussion on border controls and the monitoring of racial and ethnic discrimination at border controls? If not, could the Commission initiate such a study?

Can the Commission tell me if the European Union Monitoring Centre has any remit to examine this issue?

There is much prima facie evidence that people of non-white racial or ethnic origin are stopped more often at border controls. I have been contacted by a constituent who has been stopped and treated unfairly at the airport in Tallinn. Does the Commission agree that this issue is particularly important with the enlargement of the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(19 December 2003)

(19 December 2003)

Until now, specific monitoring of racial and ethnic discrimination in the context of border controls has not taken place. The Commission deals with individual complaints concerning such alleged discrimination on a case by case basis.

Should it prove necessary, for instance due to an increase in the number of complaints, the Commission would certainly consider initiating a study to analyse the incidence of racial and ethnic discrimination in the context of border controls in the Union.

Studying this issue would clearly fall under the remit of the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia. Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 1035/97 of 2 June 1997 (1) establishing this centre, expressly provides that free movement of persons is one of the fields in which the Centre shall collect information and data and conduct surveys and studies on phenomena of racism and xenophobia.

1

The Commission has received a number of complaints on incidents of alleged racial and ethnic discrimination in the context of border controls and has each time taken contact with the Member State involved to remind it that such discrimination is contrary to fundamental rights and that it is the Member States' responsibility to ensure that their officials do not behave in a racist way in the exercise of their functions and that they respect fundamental rights as protected by the Treaty on European Union as general principles of Community law, and as reaffirmed in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

The Commission believes that the respect of the prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of race and ethnic origin in the exercise of border controls is a very important issue for all Member States. It does not believe that enlargement will be cause for particular concern in this regard. The Commission will continue to monitor the situation in all Member States.

---

(1)  OJ L 151, 10.6.1997.

1

---
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 18

- 00036

- CR

D AVID A LLEN S TEEN

, Appellant

V

.

T HE S TATE OF T EXAS §

§

§

§

§ On Appeal from the 213th District

Court

of Tarrant County (1442404D)

October 4, 2018

Opinion by Justice Birdwell

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there

was error in the trial court’s judgment. The judgment is modified to delete the

assessment of court costs of $289 . It is ordered that the judgment of the trial court is

affirmed as modified.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By

__ /s/ Wade Birdwell

_________________ Justice Wade Birdwell
_________________________________________ 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

September 9, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

136739(5) 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

Justices 

JAMES SCHMIDT, 

Plaintiff, 

v SC: 136739 

 AGC: 1288/04 

ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE 

COMMISSION, 

Defendant. 

________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration 

of this Court’s July 2, 2008 order is considered, and it is 

DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was 

entered erroneously. 

d0828 

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_2009044EN.01004301.xml

| 21.2.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/43

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 18 December 2008 — Torres v OHIM — Bodegas Cándido (TORRE DE FRIAS)

(Case T-285/06) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition procedure - Application for Community word mark TORRE DE FRIAS - Earlier national and international word marks TORRES and LAS TORRES - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion)

(2009/C 44/73)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Miguel Torres, SA (Vilafranca del Penedés, Spain) (represented by: E. Armijo Chávarri, M. Baz de San Ceferino and A. Castán Pérez-Gómez, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: O. Mondéjar Ortuño and J. García Murillo, Agents)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Bodegas Cándido, SA (Burgos, Spain) (represented by: C. Hernández Hernández, lawyer)

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 Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 27 July 2006 (Case R-1069/2004-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Miguel Torres, SA and Bodegas Cándido, SA.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Miguel Torres, SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Miguel Torres, SA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 310, 16.12.2006.

1

---
Exhibit 10.28

[Name of Officer]

December 7, 2007

RAIT Financial Trust

Cira Centre

2929 Arch Street, 17thFloor

Philadelphia, PA 19104

Attention: Jack E.
Salmon, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer



| | Re: | Forfeiture of Certain Unvested Phantom Units
| | --- | --------------------------------------------

To RAIT Financial
Trust:

On January 23, 2007, RAIT Financial Trust (RAIT) granted to me
 phantom units (the Units) pursuant to the RAIT Investment Trust 2005 Equity Compensation Plan. All of these Units are unvested as of the date hereof.
Intending to be legally bound, I hereby forfeit said Units and relinquish any right, title or claim of interest therein or in any future income therefrom.



Sincerely,Name: [Name of Officer]


ACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREED:

RAIT FINANCIAL TRUST



|       |  |                                       |  |  |  |                 
|------ |  | ------------------------------------- |  |  |  | ----------------
|By:    |  |                                       |  |  |  | December 7, 2007
|Name:  |  | Jack E. Salmon                        |  |  |  | Date            
|Title: |  | Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer |  |  |  |