alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2009180EN.01000302.xml

| 1.8.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 180/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 180/3

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 June 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-250/07) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 93/38/EEC - Public contracts in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors - Award of a contract without a prior call for competition - Conditions - Communication of the reasons for the rejection of a tender - Time-limit)

2009/C 180/05

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Patakia and D. Kukovec, agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: D. Tsagkaraki, agent, V. Christianos, dikigoros)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Breach of Articles 4, 20(2) and 41(4) of Council Directive 93/38/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors (OJ 1993 L 199, p. 84) — Tender procedure for the study, supply, transport, installation and bringing into operation of two thermoelectric units for the thermoelectric station at Atherinolakkos, Crete

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by being unjustifiably late in replying to a tenderer’s request for information concerning the reasons for the rejection of its tender, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligation under Article 41(4) of Directive 93/38/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors, as amended by Commission Directive 2001/78/EC of 13 September 2001; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by being unjustifiably late in replying to a tenderer’s request for information concerning the reasons for the rejection of its tender, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligation under Article 41(4) of Directive 93/38/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors, as amended by Commission Directive 2001/78/EC of 13 September 2001;

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders the Hellenic Republic and the Commission of the European Communities each to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Hellenic Republic and the Commission of the European Communities each to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 155, 7.07.2007.

1

---
In the Matter of C.A.G.

No. COA15-634.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

May 3, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Reversed.
EXHIBIT
32





Certification
of Chief Executive Officer


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





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





(i)           the
accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2009 (the “Report”) fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable,
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





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








Date:
      May 11, 2009
            By           /s/ Raymond D. ZinnRaymond D. ZinnChief Executive
      Officer











Certification
of Chief Financial Officer


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





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





(i)           the
accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2009 (the “Report”) fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable,
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





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








Date:
      May 11, 2009
            By           /s/ Clyde R. WallinClyde R. WallinChief Financial
      Officer
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

July 27, 2018

t0723 

# Order

Clerk July 27, 2018

156657 (58)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 156657

COA: 332852

Kalamazoo CC: 2015

- 000818

- FH

RICHARD DONALD MARCOTTE, III,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s May 1, 2018

order is considered, and it is DENIED, because i t does not appear that the order was

entered erroneously.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 750 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 750

  To authorize to be appropriated $1,800,000 for fiscal year 2008 to 
acquire real property and carry out a military construction project at 
                  Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 2, 2007

 Mr. Domenici (for himself and Mr. Bingaman) introduced the following 
   bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed 
                                Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To authorize to be appropriated $1,800,000 for fiscal year 2008 to 
acquire real property and carry out a military construction project at 
                  Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico.

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

SECTION 1. AUTHORITY TO CARRY OUT MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT AT 
              KIRTLAND AIR FORCE BASE, NEW MEXICO.

    (a) Authority.--Using amounts appropriated pursuant to the 
authorization of appropriations under subsection (b), the Secretary of 
the Air Force may acquire real property and carry out a military 
construction project at Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico, as 
specified under such subsection.
    (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be 
appropriated for fiscal year 2008 for military construction and land 
acquisition for the Department of the Air Force for the replacement of 
a fuel unloading facility at Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico, 
$1,800,000.
                                 <all>
```
i i i i i i

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-08-00510-CR

Petra RODRIGUEZ,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 379th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2007-CR-4449W

Honorable Bert Richardson, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Delivered and Filed: September 3, 2008

DISMISSED

The trial court’s certification in this appeal states that the case is a “plea-bargain case, and

the defendant has NO right of appeal.” Rule 25.2(d) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure

provides, “[t]he appeal must be dismissed if a certification that shows the defendant has a right of

appeal has not been made part of the record under these rules.” TEX.R.APP.P. 25.2(d). Appellant’s

appellate counsel notified this court that appellant does not have a right to appeal in this case.

Counsel further indicated that appellant would not file an amended trial court certification showing
04-08-00510-CR

-2-

that she has the right of appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d); 37.1; see also Daniels v. State, 110

S.W.3d 174, 177 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, no pet.). In light of the record presented, we agree

with appellant’s counsel that Rule 25.2(d) requires this court to dismiss this appeal. Accordingly,

this appeal is dismissed.

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH
499 S.E.2d 589

#### John Edward WATKINS, s/k/a John Edward Watkins, Sr., Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Virginia, Appellee.

Record No. 0936-96-3.

Court of Appeals of Virginia.

June 2, 1998.

*474James Hingeley, Public Defender, for appellant.

Richard B. Smith, Assistant Attorney General (Richard Cullen, Attorney General, on briefs), for appellee.

Present: FITZPATRICK, C.J., and BAKER, BENTON, COLEMAN, WILLIS, ELDER, BRAY, ANNUNZIATA, OVERTON and BUMGARDNER, JJ.

UPON A REHEARING EN BANC

By opinion dated October 14, 1997, a panel of this Court reversed the conviction of John Edward Watkins for feloniously operating a motor vehicle after having been adjudicated an habitual offender. The Commonwealth’s petition for rehearing *en banc*was granted and heard on April 28, 1998. Upon rehearing, the opinion previously rendered on October 14, 1997 is withdrawn, the mandate entered on that date is vacated and we affirm the conviction.

The panel held that the trial court erred in refusing to compel the Commonwealth to uphold a conditional plea agreement. Upon rehearing, we hold the plea agreement became ineffectual when the district court allowed the Commonwealth to nolle prosequi the charges due to the failure of a witness to appear. “When the trial court enters a nolle prosequi of an indictment, it lays ‘to rest that indictment and the underlying warrant without disposition, *as though they had never existed.’ ” Burfoot v. Commonwealth,*23 Va.App. 38, 44, 473 S.E.2d 724, 727 (1996) (quoting *Arnold v. Common*
      *475
      *wealth,*18 Va.App. 218, 222, 443 S.E.2d 183, *185, aff'd en banc,*19 Va.App. 143, 450 S.E.2d 161 (1994)). “After a nolle prosequi of an indictment, the slate is wiped clean, and the situation is the same as if ‘the Commonwealth had chosen to make no charge.’ ” *Id.*

The entry of the nolle prosequi terminated the original charges, as well as Watkins’ conditional plea agreement, as if they had never existed. When the Commonwealth subsequently brought a new indictment, it was “a new charge, distinct from the original charge or indictment.” *Arnold,*18 Va.App. at 221, 443 S.E.2d at 185. Therefore, the Commonwealth was not bound by the prior plea agreement, and the said conviction is affirmed. Appellant’s conviction of driving while intoxicated remains unchanged.

For the reasons stated in the panel’s opinion, *see Watkins v. Commonwealth,*25 Va.App. 646, 491 S.E.2d 755 (1997), Judges Benton and Annunziata would reverse the conviction.

The Commonwealth shall recover of the appellant the costs in this Court, which costs shall include a fee of $925 for services rendered by the Public Defender on this appeal, in addition to counsel’s necessary direct out-of-pocket expenses, and the costs in the trial court.

This order shall be published and certified to the trial court.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7604

DILLARD J. BOOKER, Petitioner - Appellant,

v. GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:08-cv-00507-RAJ-JEB)

Submitted: December 15, 2009 Decided: December 21, 2009

Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dillard J. Booker, Appellant Pro Se. Susan Mozley Harris, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Dillard J. Booker 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 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). 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 Booker has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Booker’s motion for transcript at government expense, 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
STATE of North Carolina v. Roger Larnell MOORE.

No. COA15-498.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

April 5, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Affirmed; No error.
# CE2004078EN.01010901.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/109 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/109

---

(2004/C 78 E/0109)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2381/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(18 July 2003)

Subject:   Single market

Subject:

Will the Commission define what it means by a successful single market? How will it know when we have arrived at the single market?

---
# CE2004078EN.01078801.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/788 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/788

---

(2004/C 78 E/0838)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3195/03

by Ursula Stenzel (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(30 October 2003)

Subject:   Recognition of the profession of (clinical) optometrist

Subject:

Does the fact that that the profession of (clinical) optometrist, which is already well established in EU territory, particularly in the United Kingdom, Ireland and the Netherlands, does not exist in Austria and that EU citizens who have gained licences to practise their profession of (clinical) optometry in other EU Member States are barred from doing so in Austria represent a violation of European law, particularly with regard to freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services?

Under European law, should Member States where the profession of (clinical) optometrist is not regulated by law not recognise this profession, enabling EU citizens to practise their profession under the same conditions in any EU Member State?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(1 December 2003)

(1 December 2003)

Under the settled case law of the Court of Justice, in the absence of harmonisation of a particular professional activity Member States are in principle entitled to regulate the exercise of that activity, provided they respect the basic freedoms guaranteed by the EC Treaty (Judgment of 11 July 2002, Case C-294/00, Deutsche Paracelsus Schulen für Naturheilverfahren GmbH v. Kurt Gräbner).

According to the information available to the Commission, there is no exact Austrian equivalent of the profession of clinical optometrist as it exists in other Member States. In Austria this activity appears to be reserved for doctors.

In its Bouchoucha and Mac Quen judgments (Judgments of 3 October 1990, Case C-61/89, and 1 February 2001, Case C-l08/96), the Court of Justice stated that a Member State was not in breach of Article 43 of the EC Treaty if it introduced such a restriction on grounds of the general interest in the protection of public health.

In this connection, it should also be pointed out that according to Article 46(1) of the EC Treaty the protection of public health is one of the grounds which can justify restrictions on the freedom of establishment. Under Article 55 of the Treaty, the provisions of Article 46(1) also apply to the freedom to provide services.

The Commission is not in possession of any further information which would establish an infringement of Community law.

---
# C_2009019EN.01000801.xml

| 24.1.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 19/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.1.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 19/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 27 November 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Metherma GmbH & Co. KG v Hauptzollamt Düsseldorf

(Case C-403/07) (1)

1

(Common Customs Tariff - Combined Nomenclature - Tariff classification - Headings 8101 and 8102 - Shattering and breaking-up of bars of tungsten or molybdenum ‘obtained simply by sintering’ - Unwrought tungsten and molybdenum, including bars obtained simply by sintering - Waste and scrap)

(2009/C 19/12)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Metherma GmbH & Co. KG

Applicant:

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Düsseldorf

Defendant:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof — Interpretation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1) — Change of tariff heading for tungsten or molybdenum bars obtained by sintering when the bars are shattered

Operative part of the judgment

The Combined Nomenclature which is laid down in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, in the version applicable in 2001, namely that deriving from Commission Regulation (EC) No 2388/2000 of 13 October 2000 amending Annex I to Regulation No 2658/87, must be interpreted as meaning that bars of tungsten or molybdenum ‘obtained simply by sintering’ fall respectively under its subheadings 8101 91 10 and 8102 91 10. Such bars, which consist of the metals in question in their unwrought form and not of articles thereof, cannot be processed, by being broken up or shattered, into scrap falling respectively under subheadings 8101 91 90 and 8102 91 90 of that Combined Nomenclature.

---

(1)  OJ C 283, 21.11.2007.

1

---
Exhibit 32
                    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 of AEI Income  &  Growth
Fund XXI Limited Partnership (the "Partnership") on Form 10-Q for
the period ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange  Commission  on  the  date hereof  (the  "Report"),  the
undersigned, Robert P. Johnson, President of AEI Fund  Management
XXI,  Inc., the Managing General Partner of the Partnership,  and
Patrick  W. Keene, Chief Financial Officer of AEI Fund Management
XXI,  Inc., each certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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 Partnership.


                              /s/ ROBERT P JOHNSON
                                  Robert P. Johnson, President
                                  AEI Fund Management XXI, Inc.
                                  Managing General Partner
                                  May 12, 2011



                              /s/ PATRICK W KEENE
                                  Patrick W. Keene, Chief Financial Officer
                                  AEI Fund Management XXI, Inc.
                                  Managing General Partner
                                  May 12, 2011
Maurice Roberts, Jr., Petitioner, v. State of South Carolina, Respondent.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

July 28, 2016

ORDER

Petitioner filed a motion on July 14, 2016 for resentencing pursuant to Aiken v. Byars , 410 S.C. 534, 765 S.E.2d 572 (S.C. 2014). Now, therefore, pursuant to SC CONST. Art. V, § 4,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Honorable R. Markley Dennis, Jr. be vested with exclusive jurisdiction over the Petitioner's Motion for Resentencing in the above-captioned matter.

Judge Dennis shall at all times be vested with concurrent jurisdiction in all circuits of the state to dispose of matters relating to this case, and shall decide all matters pertaining to the Petitioner's Motion, and shall retain jurisdiction over this matter regardless of where he may be assigned to hold court, and may schedule such hearings as may be necessary at any time without regard as to whether there is a term of court scheduled.

If necessary, to resolve issues related to the appointment of counsel, a hearing shall be conducted within thirty (30) days of this order.

Within sixty (60) days of the date of this order, Judge Dennis shall issue a scheduling order setting forth the schedule that shall be followed in this matter, including the date of the hearing on the merits. The scheduling order may be amended as necessary.

s/Costa M. Pleicones

Costa M. Pleicones

Chief Justice
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1997
<CASH>                                          173493
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      609
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                174102
<PP&E>                                           10796
<DEPRECIATION>                                    7421
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  177477
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           121513
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       1160694
<OTHER-SE>                                   (1104730)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    177477
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                168468
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   210573
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  6920
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                5223
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (49025)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (49025)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (49025)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00
        

</TABLE>