alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCEHDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM EDISON
MISSION ENERGY AND SUBSIDIARIES FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                         808,280
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   98,770
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,039,294
<PP&E>                                       5,016,679
<DEPRECIATION>                                 300,609
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,158,191
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,151,781
<BONDS>                                      4,161,114
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          234,032
<PREFERRED>                                    118,103
<COMMON>                                        64,130
<OTHER-SE>                                     929,406
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,158,191
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               433,369
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  223,049
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             130,770
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 77,086
<INCOME-TAX>                                    13,675
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                       13,840
<NET-INCOME>                                    49,571
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
# C_2012355EN.01001701.xml

| 17.11.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 355/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.11.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 355/17

---

Judgment of the General Court of 27 September 2012 — Koninklijke Volker Wessels Stevin v Commission

(Case T-356/06) (1)

1

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Netherlands market in road pavement bitumen - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Fines - Imputability of the unlawful conduct)

2012/C 355/32

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Koninklijke Volker Wessels Stevin NV (Rotterdam, Netherlands) (represented: initially by E. Pijnacker Hordijk and Y. de Vries, and subsequently by E. Pijnacker Hordijk and X. Reintjes, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouquet, A. Nijenhuis and F. Ronkes Agerbeek, Agents, assisted initially by L. Gyselen, F. Tuytschaever and F. Wijckmans, and subsequently by L. Gyselen, lawyers)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 4090 final of 13 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/F/38.456 — Bitumen (Netherlands)), in so far as it concerns the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Koninklijke Volker Wessels Stevin NV to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Koninklijke Volker Wessels Stevin NV to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 20, 27.1.2007.

1

---
ex10-16.htm


Exhibit 10.16







NOTICE OF CONVERSION












Global Clean Energy, Inc:












The undersigned hereby elects to surrender and convert a certain past due promissory note dated October 14, 2009 due by Global Clean Energy, Inc, (the “Company”) in favor Jay- Kar Financial Ltd for $5,778.00, which was thereafter assigned to Whydah Communicacion, Inc, into shares of common stock of the Company (the “Common Shares” according to the conditions hereof, as of the date written below.







Conversion Calculations:







Date of Conversion: May 9th 2013







Amount of Conversion: $5,778.00


Number of Common Shares to be issued: 481,500







Amount remaining on note following this conversion: $0.00






















Whydah Communicacion, Inc


By:







(s) Mark Marek







Name: Mark Marek


Title: President
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-41038

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MANUEL ANTONIO FUENTES-RAMOS,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:17-CR-640-1

Before DAVIS, CLEMENT and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Manuel Antonio 

Fuentes-Ramos has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in 

accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States 

v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Fuentes-Ramos has filed a response. 

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record 

reflected therein, as well as Fuentes-Ramos’s response. We concur with 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 29, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-41038 Document: 00514490021 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/29/2018
No. 17-41038

2

counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for 

appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is 

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the 

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 17-41038 Document: 00514490021 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/29/2018
# C_2008171EN.01003004.xml

| 5.7.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.7.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/30

---

Order of the President of the Court of 27 November 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-235/07) (1)

1

(2008/C 171/51)

Language of the case: German

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 140, 23.6.2007.

1

---
## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________ No. 02

- 18

- 00359

- CV

___________________________

On Appeal from County Court at Law No. 1

Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 2018

- 006231

- 1

Bef ore Sudderth, C.J.; Gabriel and Kerr, JJ. Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion 

### M ARCUS 

### A. M ARTINEZ 

### , Appellant

V



### .
P RINCETON 

### V ENTURES 

### G ROUP 

### , LLC , Appellee2 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT
On March 25, 2019, we notified appellant that his brief had not been filed as the appellate rules require. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.6(a). We stated th at we could
dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless , within ten days, he filed with the
court an appellant ’ s brief and a n accompanying motion reasonably explaining the
brief’s untimely filing and his need for an extension

. See Tex. R. App. P. 10 .5(b),
38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b). We have received no response. Because appellant has failed to file a brief even after we afforded him an opportunity to explain the initial failure, we dismiss the appeal for want of
prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1) , 42.3(b), 43.2(f).

Per Curiam

Delivered: May 2, 2019
Exhibit 23.21

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation of our report dated March 14, 2000, included in this
Form 10-K, into Learn2.com Inc.'s (formerly known as 7th Level, Inc.) previously filed Registration Statements File No. 333-64365,
333-69861, 333-80357 and 333-90983 filed on Form S-3 and Registration Statements File No. 333-83695, 333-65525,
333-10341, 333-10339 and 333-92697 filed on Form S-8.



New
York, New York
March 27, 2000

E-1
State of North Carolina v. Steven Everette McCann

No. COA16-152

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: September 6, 2016

NO ERROR AT TRIAL, RESTITUTION AMOUNT VACATED AND REMANDEND.
PRICE v. STATE of North Carolina, OFFICE OF the STATE AUDITOR.

No. 471P14-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 17, 2016.

Brandon L. Truman, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina Office Of The State Auditor.

Michael C. Byrne, Raleigh, Attorney at Law, for Price, John.

Valerie L. Bateman, OSHR General Counsel, for State of North Carolina Office of the State Auditor.

John F. Maddrey, Solicitor General, for State of North Carolina Office of the state Auditor.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 2nd of January 2015 by Petitioner to Dismiss Petition for Discretionary Review:

> "Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 17th of March 2016."

ERVIN, J., recused.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
accompanying financial statements and is qualified in its entirety by reference
to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                      18,961,000
<SECURITIES>                                20,596,000
<RECEIVABLES>                               11,233,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,239,000
<INVENTORY>                                    252,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            52,629,000
<PP&E>                                       4,180,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,057,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              57,029,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,198,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        13,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  50,818,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                57,029,000
<SALES>                                     28,035,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            28,035,000
<CGS>                                        4,560,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,560,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            34,013,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               351,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (8,190,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,049,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (9,239,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (9,239,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.78)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.78)
        


</TABLE>
# C_2007020EN.01002301.xml

| 27.1.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 20/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.1.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 20/23

---

Action brought on 5 December 2006 — Koninklijke BAM Groep v Commission

(Case T-355/06)

(2007/C 20/34)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Claimant: Koninklijke BAM Groep NV (represented by: M.B.W. Biesheuvel and J.K. de Pree, lawyers)

Claimant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | annul the Commission's decision of 13 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC (Case COMP/38.456 — Bitumen — NL — C(2006) 4090 final) or at least set that decision aside to the extent to which it finds that BAM breached Article 81 EC, a fine is imposed on BAM in that regard, BAM is enjoined to put an end to that breach and to refrain in future from any of the acts or conduct referred to in Article 1, and from any acts or conduct having the same or similar objective or consequences, and to the extent to which that decision is addressed to BAM; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission's decision of 13 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC (Case COMP/38.456 — Bitumen — NL — C(2006) 4090 final) or at least set that decision aside to the extent to which it finds that BAM breached Article 81 EC, a fine is imposed on BAM in that regard, BAM is enjoined to put an end to that breach and to refrain in future from any of the acts or conduct referred to in Article 1, and from any acts or conduct having the same or similar objective or consequences, and to the extent to which that decision is addressed to BAM;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The claimant is challenging the Commission's decision of 13 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC (Case No COMP/38.456 — Bitumen — NL), by which a fine was imposed on the claimant for breach of Article 81 EC.

In support of its action, the claimant submits that the Commission acted contrary to Article 81 EC and to Articles 7 and 23(2) of Regulation No 1/2003 by concluding that the claimant had breached Article 81 EC. According to the claimant, the Commission wrongly attributed to it, as the parent company, the breach allegedly committed by a subsidiary.

In the alternative, the claimant submits that the Commission incorrectly determined the amount of the fine imposed on it. The Commission imposed a fine based on a period of two years and five months during which the claimant allegedly held 100 % of the shares in BAM NBM, whereas that period in fact amounted only to one year and five months.

---
V 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3817 

For the relief of Jeanette Vizguerra-Ramirez. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 7, 2014 

Mr. POLIS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

For the relief of Jeanette Vizguerra-Ramirez. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR JEA4 NETTE VIZGUERRA-RAMIREZ. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding subsections (a) 

6 and (b) of section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality 

7 Act, Jeanette Vizguerra-Ramirez shall be eligible for 

8 issuance of an immigrant visa or for adjustment of status 

9 to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent resi10 dence upon filing an application for issuance of an immi11 grant visa under section 204 of such Act or for adjustment 

12 of status to lawful permanent resident. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3817 IH

1 (b) ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.—If Jeanette 

2 Vizguerra-Ramirez enters the United States before the fil3 ing deadline specified in subsection (c), she shall be con4 sidered to have entered and remained lawfully and shall, 

5 if otherwise eligible, be eligible for adjustment of status 

6 under section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act 

7 as of the date of the enactment of this Act. 

8 (c) DEADLINE FOR APPLICATION AND PAYMENT OF

9 FEES.—Subsections (a) and (b) shall apply only if the ap10 plication for issuance of an immigrant visa or the applica11 tion for adjustment of status is filed with appropriate fees 

12 within 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

13 (d) REDUCTION OF IMMIGRANT VISA NUMBER.— 

14 Upon the granting of an immigrant visa or permanent res15 idence to Jeanette Vizguerra-Ramirez, the Secretary of 

16 State shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by 1, dur17 ing the current or next following fiscal year, the total num18 ber of immigrant visas that are made available to natives 

19 of the country of the alien’s birth under section 203(a) 

20 of the Immigration and Nationality Act or, if applicable, 

21 the total number of immigrant visas that are made avail22 able to natives of the country of the alien’s birth under 

23 section 202(e) of such Act. 

24 (e) DENIAL OF PREFERENTIAL IMMIGRATION

25 TREATMENT FOR CERTAIN RELATIVES.—The natural 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 3817 IH

1 parents, brothers, and sisters of Jeanette Vizguerra-Rami2 rez shall not, by virtue of such relationship, be accorded 

3 any right, privilege, or status under the Immigration and 

4 Nationality Act. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
# CE2004078EN.01046701.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/467 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/467

---

(2004/C 78 E/0491)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3128/03

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

(23 October 2003)

Subject:   Trade

Subject:

Some draft conclusions were drawn up in preparation for negotiations on the agriculture chapter at the failed WTO talks in Cancún that would involve cutting back subsidies under the common agricultural policy, which has just been reformed.

Does the European Union intend to accept these new conditions even though no agreement was reached on this matter in Cancún?

What is the European Union's margin for manoeuvre on agriculture for the next multilateral negotiations, without it having to introduce fresh reforms to the CAP?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(25 November 2003)

(25 November 2003)

Due to the course of events in Cancun, Ministers did not have the opportunity to discuss the Agricultural part of the draft Ministerial Declaration submitted by Mr Derbez. This chapter contained some proposals of great concern to the Commission, notably in the pillars of domestic support and export competition. Had the discussion started in Cancun, the Commission would have sought the necessary changes to the text.

The Commission has based its position on the decisions on the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) reform taken in Luxembourg in 2003. The depth and width of the CAP reform will enable the Commission to continue working on this basis in the future so as to maintain the consistency of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) negotiations with the Community's domestic framework.

---
**Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 December 2008 – AGEA v Consorzio Agrario di Ravenna**

**(Case C‐486/07)**

Common organisation of the markets – Cereals – Maize – Determination of price – Reductions applicable

Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Cereals – Sale of cereals held by intervention agencies (Commission Regulations No 689/92, as amended by Regulation No 2486/92, Art.
4a and Annex II, and No 2131/93, Art. 13(1)) (see para. 32, operative part)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | Reference for a preliminary ruling – Corte Suprema di Cassazione (Italy) – Interpretation of Articles 4 and 5 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 of 30 June 1992 on the common organisation of the market in cereals (OJ 1992 L 181, p. 21), Article 4a of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 689/92 of 19 March 1992 fixing the procedure and conditions for the taking-over of cereals by intervention agencies (OJ 1992 L 74, p. 18), and of Article 13 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2131/93 of 28 July 1993 laying down the procedure and conditions for the sale of cereals held by intervention agencies (OJ 1993 L 191, p. 76) – Reductions applicable for a moisture content higher than that of the standard quality – Application to the sale of maize. |

**Operative part**

The combined provisions of Article 13(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2131/93 of 28 July 1993 laying down the procedure
and conditions for the sale of cereals held by intervention agencies and Article 4a of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 689/92
of 19 March 1992 fixing the procedure and conditions for the taking-over of cereals by intervention agencies, as amended by
Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2486/92 of 27 August 1992, are to be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of a sale by
tender of maize held by the international intervention agencies, the price reductions in relation to the moisture content
laid down for durum wheat in Table II of Annex II to Regulation No 689/92, as amended by Regulation No 2486/92, do not apply.
ORDER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL (Second Chamber)

17 October 2007

Case F-115/06

**Carlos Sanchez Ferriz and Others**

**v**

**Commission of the European Communities**

(Civil service – Officials – Promotion – Omission from the list of officials promoted – 2005 promotion procedure – Promotion points – Merit – Seniority – Plea of illegality – Admissibility)

**Application:**brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Mr Sanchez Ferriz and nine other Commission officials seek, principally,
annulment of the list of officials promoted in the 2005 promotion procedure, in so far as that list does not include their
names, and, in the alternative, annulment of the decision allocating them promotion points in that procedure.

**Held:**The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible in part and manifestly unfounded in part. Each party is to bear its own
costs.

**Summary**

1.      *Officials – Actions – Act adversely affecting an official – Proposal by a Promotion Committee concerning the award of promotion
points – Not included*

*(Staff Regulations, Arts 25, second para., 45, 90 and 91)*

2.      *Officials – Promotion – Complaint by a candidate who has not been promoted – Decision rejecting the complaint – Obligation
to state the reasons on which the decision is based*

*(Staff Regulations, Arts 25, second para., 45 and 90(2))*

1.      A proposal by a Promotion Committee to award different categories of promotion points under a promotion system introduced
by an internal regulation of the Commission does not constitute an act adversely affecting an official. Promotion Committees
have no power to take decisions concerning the allocation of promotion points. Consequently, although the second paragraph
of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations requires that any decision adversely affecting a member of staff must state the grounds
on which it is based, that does not apply to such a proposal from a Promotion Committee in respect of an official who has
not been promoted.

(see para. 54)

2.      In a promotion procedure, the appointing authority is not obliged to give reasons for a promotion decision, either to the
person promoted or to the candidates who have not been promoted. It is obliged, however, to state the grounds for its decision
rejecting a complaint lodged pursuant to Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations by a candidate who has not been promoted.

(see para. 55)

See:

C-343/87 *Culin* v *Commission* [1990] ECR I‐225, para. 13

T-172/03 *Heurtaux* v *Commission* [2005] ECR-SC I‐A‐15 and II‐63, para. 42