alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2010024EN.01007801.xml

| 30.1.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/78 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.1.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/78

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 10 November 2009 — Marcuccio v Commission

(Case F-70/07) (1)

1

(Staff case - Officials - Action for damages - Availability of a parallel remedy - Manifestly inadmissible)

2010/C 24/146

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: C. Cipressa, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and J. Currall, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Annulment of the Commission’s decision to not grant the applicant’s application for reimbursement of part of his costs which the Commission was ordered to pay in the order of 6 March 2006 of the Court of First Instance in Case T-176/04 — Application for damages — Case T-176/04 DEP was referred by the Court of First Instance by order of 6 July 2009.

DEP

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The first, second, third and sixth heads of claim in the action brought by Mr Marcuccio must be rejected as manifestly inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The first, second, third and sixth heads of claim in the action brought by Mr Marcuccio must be rejected as manifestly inadmissible.

| 2. | The parties are to bear their own costs in relation to the first, second, third and sixth heads of claim in the action brought by Mr Marcuccio, including those incurred in the proceedings in Case T-176/04 DEP. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The parties are to bear their own costs in relation to the first, second, third and sixth heads of claim in the action brought by Mr Marcuccio, including those incurred in the proceedings in Case T-176/04 DEP.

---

(1)  OJ C 223, 22.9.2007, p. 20.

1

---
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, September 25, 2020.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, September 25, 2020

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A21D0057. JERMAINE E. SPENCE v. STATE OF U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

BEHAVIORAL HEALTH et al. .

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of 

this order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record 

transmitted to the Court of Appeals.

LC NUMBERS:

SU20CV1325
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Seventh Chamber)

31 January 2008

Case C-103/07 P

**Angel Angelidis**

**v**

**European Parliament**

(Appeal – Officials – Staff report – Single assessor – Conditions – Consultation of preceding immediate superior – Lack of change in post – Reasoning – Annulment – Damages)

**Appeal:**against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) in Case T-416/03 *Angelidis* v *Parliament* [2006] ECR-SC I-A-2-317 and II-A-2-1607, in which the Court rejected the applicant’s application, first, for the annulment
of his staff report for the period from 1 January to 31 December 2001 and, second, for compensation for the harm he suffered
by reason both of alleged irregularities in the disputed staff report and of its allegedly late establishment.

**Held:**The appeal is dismissed. Mr Angelidis is ordered to bear his own costs and to pay those of the European Parliament.

**Summary**

1.        *Officials – Reports procedure – Staff report – Drawing up – System put in place by the Parliament*

*(Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 43)*

2.        *Appeals – Grounds – Mistaken assessment of the facts – Inadmissibility – Review by the Court of Justice of the assessment
of the evidence – Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted*

*(Art. 225(1) EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.)*
*       *        *       *       *


EXHIBIT 32: Rule 13a-14(b) Certification





Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of China Huaren Organic Products, Inc. (the “Company”) certifies that:




1.           The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended June 30, 2009 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and




2.           The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




China Huaren Organic Products, Inc.
 Date : August 19, 2009
/s/Yushu Cao
 Yushu
Cao, Chief Executive Officer
 and
Chief Financial Officer
STATE of North Carolina v. Sulyaman Alisla WASALAAM.

No. 435P15-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 17, 2016.

Sulyaman Alislam Waslaam, for Wasalaam, Sulyaman Alisla.

Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of N.C.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 12th of January 2016 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Scotland County, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court of that County:

> "Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 17th of March 2016."
Exhibit 31.1  Section 302 Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer  I, Stephen B. Schneer, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Develocap, Inc.  2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;  4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:  a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;  b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the Evaluation Date); and  c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;  5. I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):  a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrants auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal controls.  6. I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.  Date: December 12, 2008   /s/ Stephen B. Schneer Stephen B. Schneer Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
Argued and submitted October 19,

petition for review dismissed as moot November 12, 1999

#### James SAGER, *Petitioner, v.*Hardy MYERS, Attorney General, State of Oregon, *Respondent.*

(SC S46812)

988 P2d 391

Margaret S. Olney, of Smith, Gamson, Diamond & Olney, Portland, argued the cause and filed the petition for petitioner.

Brendan C. Dunn, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the answering memorandum were Hardy Myers, Attorney General, and Michael D. Reynolds, Solicitor General.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The petition for review of ballot title is dismissed as moot.
CERTIFICATION OF
PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF
INN OF THE MOUNTAIN GODS RESORT AND CASINO
      a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by
others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report
is being prepared;b)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control
over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable
assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial
statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principals;c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls
and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this quarterly report based on such
evaluation; andd)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants
fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial
reporting.
  a)
    
    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data; andb)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have
a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
  /s/ Douglas LentzBy:
    
    Douglas LentzTitle:
    
    Chief Operating Officer and ManagementBoard Member (Principal Executive Officer)
Exhibit 99.1

      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                                PURSUANT TO
                            18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                            AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I, Tom Hofer, certify, to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that the Annual Report of Vendalux Corporation on Form 10-KSB for the
year ended March 31, 2001, fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information
contained in such Form 10-KSB fairly presents in all material respects the
financial condition and results of operations of Vendalux Corporation

By:       /s/
   --------------------
   Name: Tom Hofer
   Title:   Chief Executive Officer/Chief Financial Officer
# C_2011269EN.01004502.xml

| 10.9.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 269/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.9.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 269/45

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2011 — Kone and Others v Commission

(Case T-151/07) (1)

1

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for the installation and maintenance of elevators and escalators - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Bid-rigging - Market sharing - Price fixing)

2011/C 269/99

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Kone Oyj (Helsinki, Finland); Kone GmbH (Hanover, Germany); and Kone BV (Voorburg, Netherlands) (represented by: T. Vinje, Solicitor, D. Paemen, J. Schindler, B. Nijs, A. Tomtsis, lawyers, J. Flynn QC and D. Scannell, Barrister)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: É. Gippini Fournier and R. Sauer, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 512 final of 21 February 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/E 1/38.823 — Elevators and Escalators) or, in the alternative, reduction of the amount of the fine imposed on the applicants.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Kone Oyj, Kone GmbH and Kone BV to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Kone Oyj, Kone GmbH and Kone BV to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 155, 7.7.2007.

1

---
Exhibit
        32.1
 
 CERTIFICATION
        PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
 
 In
          connection with the Amended Quarterly Report of Vanguard Minerals Corporation
          (the "Company"), on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ended September 30, 2007,
          as
          filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report"), I, Vladimir
          Fedyunin , President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
          pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as added by 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.
              To
                  my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
                  in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
                  of the Company as of and for the period covered by the
                  Report.
 
  /s/
        Vladimir
        Fedyunin
 Vladimir
        Fedyunin
 Chief
        Executive Officer
 Duly
        Authorized Officer and Principal
 Financial
        and Accounting Officer
 
 Date:January
        10,
        2008
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ANDCHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACTOF 2002

 

I, James S.J. Manuso, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Reportof SuperGen, Inc. on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31,2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-K/Afairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of SuperGen, Inc.

 

Dated:  December 8,2010

 
|   | By:    | /s/ JAMES S.J.  MANUSO                |
|--------|--------|---------------------------------------|
|   | Name:  | James S.J. Manuso                     |
|   | Title: | President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

 

I, Michael Molkentin, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Reportof SuperGen, Inc. on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31,2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-K/Afairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of SuperGen, Inc.

 

Dated:  December 8,2010

 

 
|   | By:    | /S/ MICHAEL MOLKENTIN   |
|--------|--------|-------------------------|
|   | Name:  | Michael Molkentin       |
|   | Title: | Chief Financial Officer |

 

*A signed original of this writtenstatement required by Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934 and 18 U.S.C. 1350 has been provided to the Registrant and will beretained by the Registrant and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.*

 

*This certification accompanies theForm 10-K to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities andExchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filingof the Registrant under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934, each as amended, (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-K),irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.*

 

----
# CE2004078EN.01027502.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/275 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/275

---

(2004/C 78 E/0277)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3385/03

by Karin Junker (PSE) to the Commission

(17 November 2003)

Subject:   Use of metal detectors in archaeology

Subject:

The use of metal detectors in the field of archaeology, controversial among experts, is subject to different rules in the various EU Member States. With the entry of a further 10 countries in May 2004, the differences will be even greater. In some Member States, it is already an offence to possess some kinds of metal probes, while in others it is not, leading to differing legal situations in the individual Member States.

What are the various rules in the Member States? Does a Community legal basis exist in this area? If not, does the Commission feel it necessary, bearing in mind the subsidiarity principle, to assess the situation with the aim of harmonising the rules in the Member States by means of European rules? If not, why not?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(22 December 2003)

(22 December 2003)

The Commission has no competence regarding the use of metal-detectors in the field of archaeology. In order to obtain information on the use of these devices in the various Member States, the Honourable Member should therefore contact the competent national authorities directly.

At Community level, the EC Treaty does not provide any legal basis for the adoption of rules on the use of metal-detectors in the field of archaeology.

The Commission therefore does not intend to consider and/or propose any provisions at European level to regulate this field of activity.

Article 151 of the EC Treaty empowers the Community to encourage cooperation between Member States in the field of culture but specifically rules out ‘any harmonisation of the laws and regulations of the Member States’.

---
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Trans Energy, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report), I, Lisa A. Corbitt, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and
belief:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ JOHN S. TUMIS      
|John S. Tumis          
|Chief Financial Officer
|September 26, 2013     

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. The foregoing certifications are accompanying the Companys Form 10-K solely pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section
1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-K or as a separate disclosure document.
In the Matter of: C.B.

No. COA16-144

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: September 20, 2016

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 23.1





CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS





The Board of Directors and Stockholders


CKE Restaurants, Inc.:





We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Nos. 333-83666,
333-76884, 333-41266, 333-83621, 333-83601, 333-76377, 333-51103, 333-52633, 333-62421, 33-56313, 33-55337, 333-12399, 33-53089-01, 2-86142-01, 33-31190-01 and 333-12401) of CKE Restaurants, Inc. and subsidiaries of our report dated March 13, 2002,
relating to the consolidated balance sheets of CKE Restaurants, Inc. and subsidiaries as of January 31, 2002 and 2001 and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders equity and cash flows for each of the years in the
three-year period ended January 31, 2002, which report appears in the January 31, 2002 Annual Report on Form 10-K of CKE Restaurants, Inc. and Subsidiaries.





Orange County, California


April 29, 2002
<PAGE>   1


                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.11


            SUMMARY OF FISCAL YEAR 1998 SENIOR MANAGEMENT BONUS PLAN

         In July 1997, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of
FORE Systems, Inc. (the "Compensation Committee") adopted a Senior Management
Bonus Plan for the 1998 fiscal year which would reward the Company's senior
management personnel with bonus payments if certain revenue, earnings per share
and individual performance objectives were achieved. Under the Senior Management
Bonus Plan, no bonus pool would be available unless specific earnings per share
objectives were met in each fiscal quarter. If these objectives were met in each
fiscal quarter, then, at the conclusion of the fiscal year, a bonus pool of 25%
of the base salary of each member of senior management would become available.
Pursuant to the terms of the Senior Management Bonus Plan, the bonus pool could
be increased, up to a maximum of 100% of base salary for each member of senior
management, based upon the achievement by the Company of certain revenue and
earnings per share objectives as well as the achievement by the members of
senior management of individual performance objectives. Of the available bonus
pool, 70% of the bonus for each member of senior management was payable based
exclusively on the achievement of the corporate revenue and earnings per share
objectives and the other 30% was payable based on the Compensation Committee's
assessment of the individual performance of each member of senior management.
Pursuant to the determination of the Compensation Committee, based upon the
Company meeting certain earnings per share expectations of research analysts who
cover the Company and internal earnings per share targets in each quarter of the
1998 fiscal year, a total bonus pool of approximately 35% of the base salary of
each member of senior management was available under the Senior Management Bonus
Plan. The Compensation Committee awarded the entire bonus amount available to
each member of senior management, based upon its assessment of the individual
performance of each member of senior management.