alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2013336EN.01001501.xml

| 16.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 336/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 336/15

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2013 — CEPSA v Commission

(Case T-497/07) (1)

1

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Spanish market for penetration bitumen - Annual market-sharing and price-fixing agreements - Translation of the statement of objections - Imputability of the unlawful conduct - Reasonable period - Principle of impartiality - Calculation of the amount of the fine - Res judicata)

2013/C 336/29

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Compañía Española de Petróleos (CEPSA), SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented: initially by O. Armengol i Gasull, P. Pérez-Llorca Zamora and Á. Pascual Morcillo, subsequently by O. Armengol i Gasull and J. Rodríguez Cárcamo, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, acting as Agent, and initially by J. Rivas Andrés, lawyer, and M. Heenan Bróna, solicitor, subsequently by J. Rivas Andrés and J. Gutiérrez Gisbert, lawyer, and finally by J. Rivas Andrés)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 4441 final of 3 October 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP-38.710 Bitumen (Spain)), and for reduction in the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant in that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Dismisses the claim of the European Commission regarding the amount of the fine. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the claim of the European Commission regarding the amount of the fine.

| 3. | Orders Compañía Española de Petróleos (CEPSA), SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Compañía Española de Petróleos (CEPSA), SA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 64, 8.3.2008.

1

---
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

September 25, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

135117(81) Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

Justices 

GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 SC: 135117 

v COA: 270430 

ALUMI-BUNK, INC., and ERIC JAIN,

Defendants-Appellants. 

Wayne CC: 04-422587-CB 

____________________________________ 

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion by plaintiff –appellee for 

extension of the time for filing their brief on appeal is considered and it is GRANTED. 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

September 25, 2008 

 Clerk
# C_2009180EN.01000301.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 (Second Chamber) of 4 June 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Riigikohus — Republic of Estonia) — JK Otsa Talu OÜ v Põllumajanduse Registrite ja Informatsiooni Amet (PRIA)

(Case C-241/07) (1)

1

(EAGGF - Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 - Community support for rural development - Support for agri-environmental production methods)

2009/C 180/04

Language of the case: Estonian

Referring court

Referring court

Riigikohus

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: JK Otsa Talu OÜ

Applicant:

Defendant: Põllumajanduse Registrite ja Informatsiooni Amet (PRIA)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Riigikohus — Interpretation of Articles 22, 23, 24(1), 37(4) and 39 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations (OJ 1999 L 160, p. 80) — National legislation reserving agri-environmental support solely to applicants who have already been granted support in the previous year and excluding new applicants who commit themselves to organising their production in accordance with agri-environmental requirements

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The provisions of Article 24(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 2223/2004 of 22 December 2004, read in conjunction with Articles 37(4) and 39 thereof, do not preclude a Member State from restricting, on account of insufficient budgetary resources, the class of recipients of rural development support to farmers already concerned by a decision to grant such support in the previous budgetary year.

---

(1)  OJ C 170, 21.07.2007.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE STATEMENTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED MARCH 31, 1999 AND
AS OF MARCH 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                    0000919602
<NAME> HELSINKI CAPITAL PARTNERS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                    1
<CURRENCY>                      US dollars

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Mar-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 Apr-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   Mar-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         0
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          656
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       1,246
<OTHER-SE>                                     (1,902)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   0
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  110
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (110)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (110)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (110)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.00)


</TABLE>
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Nuclear Regulatory Commission

###### Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards 

The ACRS Subcommittee on Planning and Procedures will hold a meeting on October 5, 2005, Room T-2B1, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. 

The entire meeting will be open to public attendance, with the exception of a portion that may be closed pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c) (2) and (6) to discuss organizational and personnel matters that relate solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of the ACRS, and information the release of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. 

The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:

## Wednesday, October 5, 2005, 10 a.m.-11:30 a.m. 

The Subcommittee will discuss proposed ACRS activities and related matters. The Subcommittee will gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the full Committee. 

                    Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or written comments should notify the Designated                           ( print page 55430)                        Federal Official, Mr. Sam Duraiswamy (telephone: 301-415-7364) between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. (e.t.) five days prior to the meeting, if possible, so that appropriate arrangements can be made. Electronic recordings will be permitted only during those portions of the meeting that are open to the public.                 

Further information regarding this meeting can be obtained by contacting the Designated Federal Official between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. (e.t.). Persons planning to attend this meeting are urged to contact the above named individual at least two working days prior to the meeting to be advised of any potential changes in the agenda. 

Dated: September 14, 2005. 

Michael L. Scott, 

Branch Chief, ACRS/ACNW. 

[FR Doc. 05-18800 Filed 9-20-05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-41575

Summary Calendar

NATHANIEL KEITH SINGLETON

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

CORRECTIONAL OFFICER IV A THOMPSON; OFFICER ROBERTSON;

OFFICER KANTOO; OFFICER FAIRLY; OFFICER HAVEN

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:02-CV-713

Before KING, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Nathaniel Keith Singleton, a former Texas prisoner, filed a 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 action against various prison officials, including Correctional Officer

Anthony Thompson. Singleton appeals the jury verdict in favor of Thompson in

these civil proceedings. His motion for leave to file an out-of-time reply brief is

granted.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 3, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 06-41575

2

Singleton maintains that the magistrate judge erroneously admitted the

expert testimony of Dr. Bruce Smith, in violation of FED. R. EVID. 702 and

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). Because

Singleton did not challenge this testimony below, we review for plain error. See

Foradori v. Harris, 523 F.3d 477, 507-08 & n.26 (5th Cir. 2008). Although

Singleton notes that Smith did not review the actual X-rays of his injuries, he

has pointed to no discrepancies between the X-rays and the radiology reports.

He also has not established that Smith’s testimony was not based on accepted

reasoning and methodology. See Rule 702. Singleton has not established that

the admission of Smith’s testimony constituted an error plain on the face of the

record that affected his substantial rights. See Robertson v. Plano City of Texas,

70 F.3d 21, 23 (5th Cir. 1995).

Singleton also contends that the evidence was insufficient to support the

jury verdict and that the magistrate judge erred in accepting a jury verdict

contrary to the law and the evidence presented. However, Singleton’s failure to

file a motion for a new trial or for judgment as a matter of law precludes review

of his sufficiency claim. See Unitherm Food Sys., Inc. v. Swift-Eckrich, Inc., 546

U.S. 394, 398-404 (2006). The judgment of the district court is thus affirmed.

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

  CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 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 of Applix, Inc. (the
"Company") for the period ended September 30, 2003 (the "Report"), the
undersigned, David C. Mahoney, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

(1)  the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of 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/ David C. Mahoney
                                                   -----------------------------
     Dated: November 12, 2003                          David C. Mahoney
                                                       Chief Executive Officer
Randy B. FREEMAN, Employee v. J.L. ROTHROCK, Employer and North American Speciality, Carrier Aequicap Claims Services, Inc. (Formerly Claims Control, Inc.).

No. 163A08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 11, 2008.

Jay A. Gervasi, Jr., Greensboro, for Freeman.

*905Joy H. Brewer, Ginny P. Lanier, Cary, for Rothrock, et al.

Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ___, 657 S.E.2d 389.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition for discretionary review, filed by Plaintiff on the 10th day of April 2008 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 and the Appellate Rule 16(b) as to issues in addition to those presented as the basis for the dissenting opinion in the Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the petition for discretionary review as to additional issues is

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 11th day of June 2008."

Plaintiff shall forthwith submit an appeal bond to this Court, as provided by Appellate Rule 17(b). The bond may be in cash or by a written undertaking with good and sufficient surety in the sum of $250.00.

Accordingly, the new brief of the Plaintiff shall be filed with this Court not more than 30 days from the date of certification of this order.
STATE of North Carolina v. Daquane Ali CHILES, Defendant.

No. COA16-612

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: December 6, 2016

AFFIRMED.
STATE of North Carolina v. Tare Laquan WALKER

No. COA16-423

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: December 6, 2016

AFFIRMED.
Colleen BLONDELL v. Shakil AHMED, Shabana Ahmed, Michael Fekete, and Susan Elizabeth Fekete, Individually

No. 275A16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 8, 2016 December 9, 2016.

J. Matthew Waters, Attorney at Law, Lori P. Jones, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Ahmed, Shakil, et al.

Joseph E. Propst, Attorney at Law, Raleigh.

William H. Gifford, Jr., Attorney at Law, Winston-Salem, John L. Wait, Attorney at Law, High Point, for Blondell, Colleen.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition for discretionary review, filed by Defendants on the 26th of July 2016 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 and the Appellate Rule 16(b) as to issues in addition to those presented as the basis for the dissenting opinion in the Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the petition for discretionary review as to additional issues is

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th of December 2016."

Accordingly, only those issues which are the basis of the dissenting opinion in the Court of Appeals shall be presented to this Court in briefs. The Defendants' new brief so limited in scope shall be filed with this Court not more than 30 days from the date of certification of this order.
In the Matter of P.R.

No. COA15-552.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

June 7, 2016.

**CASE REPORTED WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### National Council on Disability

*Times and Dates:*                    September 21, 2005, 3 p.m. Eastern; November 4, 2005, 3 p.m. Eastern; March 2, 2006, 3 p.m. Eastern; June 1, 2006, 3 p.m. Eastern; September 7, 2006, 3 p.m. Eastern.                 

*Place:*                     National Council on Disability, 1331 F Street, NW., Suite 850, Washington, DC.                 

*Agency:*                     National Council on Disability (NCD).                           ( print page 55927)    

*Status:*                     All parts of these meetings will be open to the public. Those interested in participating in these meetings should contact the appropriate staff member listed below. Due to limited resources, only a few telephone lines will be available for the call.                 

*Agenda:*                     Roll call, announcements, reports, new business, adjournment.                 

*Contact Person for More Information:*                     Geraldine (Gerrie) Drake Hawkins, Ph.D., Program Analyst, NCD, 1331 F Street, NW., Suite 850, Washington, DC 20004; 202-272-2004 (voice), 202-272-2074 (TTY), 202-272-2022 (fax),                     *ghawkins@ncd.gov.*

*Cultural Diversity Advisory Committee Mission:*                     The purpose of NCD's Cultural Diversity Advisory Committee is to provide advice and recommendations to NCD on issues affecting people with disabilities from culturally diverse backgrounds. Specifically, the committee will help identify issues, expand outreach, infuse participation, and elevate the voices of underserved and unserved segments of this nation's population that will help NCD develop federal policy that will address the needs and advance the civil and human rights of people from diverse cultures.                 

Dated: August 17, 2005. 

Ethel D. Briggs, 

Executive Director. 

[FR Doc. 05-19067 Filed 9-22-05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6820-MA-P
In the MATTER OF: D.P. and B.P.

No. COA16-529

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: November 15, 2016

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; REMANDED.
Converted by EDGARwiz





PROMISSORY NOTE




AMMENDMEMT AGREEMENT




ORIGINAL PROMISSORY NOTE AMOUNT: $600,000.00







ON JULY 16, 2014 THE PARTIES, IIM Global Corporation (hereinafter refer to as the “Borrower”), and Penn Investments Inc (hereafter refer to as the “Lender"), have agreed to extend the repayment due date of the Promissory Note for the Amount of $600,000 (Six Hundred Thousand) Dollars dated and executed on March 31, 2014 from September 30, 2014 to January 30, 2015.




All the other Terms and Conditions of the original Promissory Note remain in full force and in effect.




This Amendment Agreement and the original Promissory Note has been entered into and shall be performed in Seminole County, Florida, and shall be construed in accordance with the laws of Florida and any applicable federal statutes or regulations of the United States.  Any claims or disputes concerning this Amendment Agreement and the original Note shall, be adjudicated in Seminole County, Florida.






IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement was executed as of the date first above written.  




  

 IIM Global Corporation

                                                  Penn Investments Inc




 




__/s/ David S. Jones ____________________

                           ___/s/ Douglas Solomon ____________

 Signed on behalf of IIM Global Corporation 

Signed on behalf of Penn Investments Inc

 By David S. Jones, President & CEO.

By Douglas Solomon, President & CEO
Creola Hall, Plaintiff, v. Rodney Taylor Booth, Defendant.

No. COA16-123

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: October 4, 2016

AFFIRMED.
# C_2009141EN.01001101.xml

| 20.6.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 141/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 141/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 2 April 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret — Denmark)) — Criminal proceedings against Frede Damgaard

(Case C-421/07) (1)

1

(Medicinal products for human use - Directive 2001/83/EC - Concept of ‘advertising’ - Dissemination of information about a medicinal product by a third party acting on his own initiative)

2009/C 141/16

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Referring court

Vestre Landsret

Party in the main proceedings

Party in the main proceedings

Frede Damgaard

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Vestre Landsret — Interpretation of Art. 86 of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67) — Concept of advertising — Dissemination of information about a medicinal product by a third party acting on his own initiative and completely independently of the seller and the manufacturer

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

Article 86 of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, as amended by Directive 2004/27/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004, is to be interpreted as meaning that dissemination by a third party of information about a medicinal product, including its therapeutic or prophylactic properties, may be regarded as advertising within the meaning of that article, even though the third party in question is acting on his own initiative and completely independently, de jure and de facto, of the manufacturer and the seller of such a medicinal product. It is for the national court to determine whether that dissemination constitutes a form of door-to-door information, canvassing activity or inducement designed to promote the prescription, supply, sale or consumption of medicinal products.

---

(1)  OJ C 269, 10.11.2007.

1

---