alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 29 November 2007 – Stadtwerke Schwäbisch Hall and Others v Commission**

**(Case C‐176/06 P)**

Appeal – Aid allegedly granted by the German authorities to nuclear power stations – Provisions for closure of power stations and disposal of radioactive waste – Inadmissibility of the action before the Court of First Instance – Absolute bar

1.                     *Appeals – Grounds – Inadmissibility of the action before the Court of First Instance – Absolute bar for non-compliance with
the condition laid down by Article 230, fourth para., EC – Examination of Court’s own motion (Art. 230, fourth para., EC;
Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 56) (see para. 18)*

2.                     *Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them (Arts 88(2) and (3) EC
and 230, fourth para. , EC) (see paras 19-25, 28-31)*

**Re:**

| | | | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 26 January 2006 in Case T-92/02 | Stadtwerke Schwäbisch Hall GmbH and Others | v | Commission | in which the Court dismissed the action seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2001) 3967 final of 11 December 2001 declaring that the German tax exemption scheme applied to the reserves established by nuclear power stations for the purpose of disposal of their radioactive waste and the permanent closure of their plants does not constitute State aid as referred to in Article 87(1) EC – Obligation of the Commission to initiate the | inter partes | procedure provided for in Article 88(2) EC where there are difficulties of assessment or doubts |

**Operative part**

| |
| --- |
| The Court: |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | | Annuls the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 26 January 2006 in Case T-92/02 Stadtwerke Schwäbisch Hall GmbH and Others v Commission. |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | | Dismisses as inadmissible the action brought by Stadtwerke Schwäbisch Hall GmbH, Stadtwerke Tübingen GmbH and Stadtwerke Uelzen GmbH before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2001) 3967 final of 11 December 2001 declaring that the German tax exemption scheme applied to the reserves established by the operators of nuclear power stations for the purpose of the safe disposal of their radioactive waste and the permanent closure of their plants does not constitute State aid as referred to in Article 87(1) EC. |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | | Orders Stadtwerke Schwäbisch Hall GmbH, Stadtwerke Tübingen GmbH and Stadtwerke Uelzen GmbH to pay the costs of the two sets of proceedings. |
# CE2004088EN.01041101.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/411 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/411

---

(2004/C 88 E/0417)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2471/03

by Catherine Stihler (PSE) to the Commission

(24 July 2003)

Subject:   Italy and compliance with animal welfare regulation

Subject:

The Independent recently reported that police in Italy say anglers are using live kittens as bait, while fishing for the gigantic sheat-fish.

Giuseppe Lagana, a police officer in Mantua in the Po valley, says the first case of kittens being used in the Po river was detected in May. But Mr Lagana, who doubles as a commander with Ampana, Italy's voluntary nature protection force, said the incident was not isolated.

Could the Commission confirm whether Italy is in full compliance with general EU animal welfare legislation?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(11 September 2003)

(11 September 2003)

The Commission is on record as deploring animal cruelty in all its forms and would be horrified if live kittens were used as fishing bait as alleged by the Honourable Member.

However, Community law in relation to animal welfare is limited in scope and covers essentially only the rearing of animals on farms and the slaughter or killing of those animals, transport of all species and the treatment of laboratory animals.

Prevention of cruelty to domestic cats for example, falls within the exclusive competence of the Member States and it is therefore, for the Italian authorities to investigate the allegations referred to by the Honourable Member.

---
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D2023-1848

_____________________________

CHRISTOPHER L ONEAL,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the County Court for Columbia County.

Sara J. Carter, Judge.

April 2, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. 

LEWIS, ROWE, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

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

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender, and Jasmine R. Dixon, 

Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
EXHIBIT 10.7


 


ENDORSEMENT TO 10% SENIOR SECURED CONVERTIBLE NOTE


 


Precision Optics Corporation, Inc.

New York, New York

December 1, 2010


 


The
10% Senior Secured Convertible Note dated June 25, 2008 and amended
December 11, 2008, June 25, 2010, July 26, 2010, September 15,
2010, October 15, 2010, November 15, 2010 and November 30, 2010
(the “Note”) of Precision Optics Corporation, Inc., a Massachusetts
corporation (the “Company”), payable to the order of Arnold Schumsky
(the “Holder”) in an aggregate principal amount of $50,000 and to which
this Endorsement is affixed is hereby amended in the following respects:


 


1.                                       The term “Stated
Maturity Date” is hereby restated to be “December 3, 2010.”


 


2.                                       Except as
expressly amended by this Endorsement, the Note remains in full force and
effect and the Company hereby reconfirms its obligations thereunder.


 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Endorsement to be duly executed,
and the Holder has caused this Endorsement to be duly accepted, by their
respective duly authorized representatives as of the day and year first above
written.


 


 


	
   

  	
  PRECISION OPTICS CORPORATION, INC.

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By

  	
  /s/ Richard E. Forkey

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Name: Richard E. Forkey

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Title: Chief Executive Officer

  



 


	
  Accepted:

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  /s/ Arnold
  Schumsky 

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Arnold Schumsky
<PAGE>
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                     EXHIBIT 21


SUBSIDIARIES OF SYNDICATED FOOD SERVICE INTERNATIONAL, INC., as of date of
filing of 10KSB:


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                           ORGANIZED                PERCENTAGE OF
                                                             UNDER                      VOTING
                                                          THE LAWS OF                   POWER

<S>                                                       <C>                       <C>
Beasley Food Service, Inc.                                  Delaware                    100%
Beasley Transportation, Inc.                                Delaware                    100%
Syndicated Bloomington I LLC                                Delaware                    100%
Momentum Food Services, Inc.                                Florida                     100%
Floridino's, Inc.                                           New York                    100%
</TABLE>
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANDRES BARRERA-FLORES,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-72999

Agency No. A092-171-581

ORDER OF DISMISSAL *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Argued and Submitted January 11, 2010

Seattle, Washington

Before: KLEINFELD, TASHIMA, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

Andres Barrera-Flores (“Barrera-Flores”), a native and citizen of Mexico

who has lawfully resided in the United States since December 1990, petitions for

review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision denying his

application for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition. 

FILED

FEB 02 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary decision to deny his

application for cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i);

Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 980–81 (9th Cir. 2009). While we

retain jurisdiction to review “colorable” constitutional claims, “a petitioner may

not create the jurisdiction that Congress chose to remove simply by cloaking an

abuse of discretion argument in constitutional garb . . . . To determine whether we

have jurisdiction over claims labeled as due process violations, we must look

beyond the label.” Torres-Aguilar v. INS, 246 F.3d 1267, 1271 (9th Cir. 2001).

We have held that a petitioner did not state a colorable constitutional

challenge when she claimed “that the IJ denied her right to due process by

misapplying the facts of her case to the applicable law.” Martinez-Rosas v.

Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005). Barrera-Flores contends that “the

BIA and the IJ before it, misappl[ied] the legally required future oriented analysis

for hardship,” that “the Agency . . . did not properly weigh the evidence,” and that

“[b]oth the BIA and the IJ incorrectly applied the hardship standard.” 

Our review of the record convinces us that we lack jurisdiction because

Barrera-Flores has merely labeled an abuse of discretion challenge to the

discretionary hardship determination as a due process violation.

PETITION DISMISSED.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6404

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

RICHARD LYNN WILLIAMS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees,

District Judge. (5:01-cr-00012-RLV-1; 5:06-cv-00131-RLV)

Submitted: August 21, 2008 Decided: August 26, 2008

Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Richard Lynn Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Tullidge Cullen,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina,

for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
 2 

PER CURIAM:

Richard Lynn Williams seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion.

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 Williams has

not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 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
Brandon EAGLE, Plaintiff, v. Nicole C. EAGLE, Defendant.

No. COA 15-668.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

April 5, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Affirmed.
```

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 179 (Friday, September 16, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54768-54769]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-18459]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[WY-920-1310-01; WYW144552]

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 WYW144552 from Chris S. 
Glade for lands in Natrona 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 per acre or fraction 
thereof, per year and 16\2/3\ percent, respectively. The lessee

[[Page 54769]]

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 WYW144552 effective April 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. 05-18459 Filed 9-15-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-22-P
```
Exhibit
10.44
 CKE
Restaurants, Inc.
  Amendment
No. 4
 To
 Employment
Agreement
  This
Amendment No. 4 (the “Amendment”) to
Employment Agreement is made effective as of January 26, 2010, by and between
CKE Restaurants, Inc. (the “Company”) and Richard
E. Fortman (the “Employee”).
  RECITALS:
  A.  The
Company and the Employee entered into an Employment Agreement dated as of
January 2004, and amended on December 6, 2005, March 20, 2007 and December 16,
2008 (the “Agreement”).
  B.  The
Company and Employee now desire to amend the Agreement as set forth
below.
   AGREEMENT
  1.  Other Compensation and
Fringe Benefits.  Section 4(d) of the Agreement is hereby
amended to extend the bonus provided for therein to fiscal year
2011.
  2.  Definitions.  Terms
used but not defined in this Amendment shall have the respective meanings
assigned to them in the Agreement.
  3.  Counterparts.  This
Amendment may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which shall be
deemed an original, and all of which shall constitute one
Amendment.
  4.  Terms and Conditions of
Agreement.  Except as specifically amended by this Amendment,
all terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and
effect.
   [Signature
Page Follows]
  
 
 IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment is executed by the undersigned as of the date
first written above.
 
 
 /s/ Richard E.
      FortmanRichard E.
      Fortman
 
 CKE Restaurants,
      Inc.By:
                    /s/ Andrew F.
      PuzderAndrew F.
      Puzder,Chief Executive
      Officer
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3699 

To amend title 28, United States Code, to protect the right of a claimant 

in a civil action before a Federal court to retain a structured settlement 

broker to negotiate the terms of payment of an award, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 11, 2013 

Mr. HIGGINS (for himself, Mr. CARTWRIGHT, Mr. BRALEY of Iowa, and Mr. 

RICHMOND) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 28, United States Code, to protect the right 

of a claimant in a civil action before a Federal court 

to retain a structured settlement broker to negotiate 

the terms of payment of an award, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Structured Settlement 

5 Claimants Rights Act of 2013’’. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3699 IH

1 SEC. 2. IN GENERAL. 

2 (a) FEDERAL COURT PROCEEDINGS.—Chapter 111 

3 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at 

4 the end the following: 

5 ‘‘§ 1660. Right to retain structured settlement broker 

6 ‘‘A claimant in any civil action before a Federal court 

7 shall have the right to retain a structured settlement 

8 broker to act on behalf of that claimant for purposes of 

9 negotiating a schedule of payments or other terms of pay10 ment of a sum certain previously agreed to paid by or on 

11 behalf of the defendant in satisfaction of a judgment 

12 against that defendant or in accordance with the terms 

13 of a settlement. The court shall inform the claimant of 

14 this right at the appropriate time. The defendant shall 

15 provide timely notice of any professional relationship be16 tween the defendant and the broker if any such relation17 ship exists or has existed.’’. 

18 (b) ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS.—Section 554 of 

19 title 5, United States Code, is amended by adding at the 

20 end the following: 

21 ‘‘(f) In the case of any proceeding under this section, 

22 a party to that proceeding shall have the right to retain 

23 a structured settlement broker to act on behalf of that 

24 party for purposes of negotiating a schedule of payments 

25 or other terms of payment of a sum certain previously 

26 agreed to paid by or on behalf of another party in satisfacVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:53 Dec 13, 2013 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3699.IH H3699

pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 3699 IH

1 tion of a decision against that party or in accordance with 

2 the terms of a settlement between the parties. The agency 

3 shall inform the claimant of this right at the appropriate 

4 time. The defendant shall provide timely notice of any pro5 fessional relationship between the defendant and the 

6 broker if any such relationship exists or has existed.’’. 

Æ 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32

                    CERTIFICATION OF CEO AND CFO 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A (Amendment No. 2) of
Universal Automotive Industries, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the "Report"), Arvin Scott, as Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, and Robert W. Zimmer, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each
hereby certifies, 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 his
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/ Arvin Scott
-----------------

Name:  Arvin Scott

Title:  Chief Executive Officer
Date:  December 23, 2004

/s/ Robert W. Zimmer
------------------------
Name: Robert W. Zimmer
Title:  Chief Financial Officer
Date:  December 23, 2004

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

See also the certification pursuant to Sec. 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, which is also attached to this Report.
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 173 (Thursday, September 8, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 53362]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-17742]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Notice of Proposals to Engage in Permissible Nonbanking 
Activities or to Acquire Companies that are Engaged in Permissible 
Nonbanking Activities; Correction

    This notice corrects a notice (FR Doc. 05-17264) published on page 
51816 of the issue for Wednesday, August 31, 2005.
    Under the Federal Reserve Bank of Chcago, the entry for Marshall 
and Ilsley Corporation, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, is revised to read as 
follows:
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (Patrick M. Wilder, Assistant 
Vice President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:
    1. Marshall and Ilsley Corporation, Milwaukee, Wisconsin; to 
acquire Brasfield Holdings, LLC, Birmingham, Alabama, and thereby 
indirectly acquire ownership of Brasfield Technology LLC, Brasfield 
Data Services LLC, Image Center LLC and Image Exchange LLC, all located 
in Birmingham, Alabama, and thereby engage in data processing and 
management consulting activities, pursuant to sections 
225.28(b)(9)(i)(A), and 225.28(b)(14)(i and ii) of Regulation Y.
    Comments on this application must be received by September 15, 
2005.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, September 1, 
2005.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 05-17742 Filed 9-7-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
STATE of North Carolina v. Andy Keith KOONCE II.

No. COA15-916.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

March 15, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

No Error.
Order entered November 19, 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas** No. 05 - 14 - 01352 - CV GENERAL PACKAGING CO RPORATION, Appellant V. LEONARDO HERNANDEZ G ARCIA, Appellee On Appeal from the 95th Judicial District Court Dallas Cou nty, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC - 13 - 13137 - D 

### O RDER We GRANT appellant’s November 14, 2014 motion for an extension of time to file a brief

. Appellant shall file its brief by December 19, 2014 . We caution appellant that no further extension of time wil l be granted in this accelerated appeal absent extraordinary circumstances.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS JUSTICE