alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 18 December 2008 – Componenta v Commission**

**(Case T-455/05)**

State aid – Metallurgy sector – Acquisition of a shareholding held by an undertaking in a property company and repayment of a loan by that undertaking to
the property company in consideration for an investment in that undertaking – Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery – Private investor test – Valuation of the shares in a property company – Valuation of the real property assets of a company – Duty to state the reasons for the decision – Finding of the Court of its own motion

1.                     *Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application
is based (Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see paras 44-45)*

2.                     *State aid – Concept – Competence conferred on the Commission and the national court to classify a national measure as State
aid – Limited discretion of the Commission (Art. 87(1) EC) (see para. 97)*

3.                     *Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Commission decision on State aid (Arts 87(1) EC and
253 EC) (see paras 98-100)*

4.                     *State aid – Administrative procedure – National measures implemented without having been notified – Faculty open to the Commission
to issue a direction to the Member State concerned in order to obtain the information deemed by it to be necessary – Decision
adopted by the Commission, without issuing a direction, on the basis of information regarded by it as fragmentary (Council
Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 10) (see paras 105-108)*

5.                     *Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Correction of an error of reasoning during the proceedings
before the Court – Not permissible (Art. 253 EC) (see para. 121)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision 2006/900/EC of 20 October 2005 on the State Aid implemented by Finland for investment aid to Componenta Corporation (OJ 2006 L 353, p. 36). |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Annuls Commission Decision 2006/900/EC of 20 October 2005 on the State Aid implemented by Finland for investment aid to Componenta Corporation; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and pay Componenta’s costs; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 3. | | Orders the Republic of Finland to bear its own costs. |
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6928

BERNARD BAGLEY,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; WARDEN, KERSHAW CORRECTIONAL

INSTITUTION,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District

Judge. (2:07-cv-01470-PMD)

Submitted: September 16, 2008 Decided: September 23, 2008

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bernard Bagley, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy

Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Bernard Bagley, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the

district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the

magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000)

petition. 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 Bagley 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
# C_2009044EN.01007301.xml

| 21.2.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/73 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/73

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 4 November 2008 — Van Beers v Commission

(Case F-126/07) (1)

1

(Staff cases - Officials - Promotion - Attestation procedure - Procedure for 2006 - Exclusion from the list of officials pre-selected - Article 45a of the Staff Regulations)

(2009/C 44/127)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Isabelle Van Beers (Woluwé-St-Étienne, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Re:

Annulment of the Commission decision of 22 February 2007 rejecting the applicant's application under the attestation procedure for 2006.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the parties to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 22 of 26.1.2008, p. 57.

1

---
# C_2009032EN.01003002.xml

| 7.2.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 32/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 32/30

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 December 2008 — Dada v OHIM

(Case T-101/07) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for a figurative Community trade mark DADA - Earlier national word mark DADA - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Genuine use of the earlier trade mark - Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

(2009/C 32/56)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Dada SpA (Florence, Italy) (represented by: D. Caneva and G. Locurto, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Sempio, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Dada Srl (Udine, Italy) (represented by: M. Cartella and M. Fazzini, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 January 2007 (Case R 1342/2005-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Dada Srl and Dada SpA.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Dada SpA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Dada SpA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 129, 9.6.2007.

1

---
Regina Radford Doss and Amy Radford Barrett, as the Co-administrators of the Estate of Tony Marie Pridgen Radford, Plaintiffs v. Brenton D. Adams, Brent Adams Law Offices, PC, d/b/a "Brent Adams & Associates," Defendants

No. COA16-446

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: December 6, 2016

AFFIRMED.
# C_2008223EN.01001501.xml

| 30.8.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 223/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 223/15

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 July 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Flughafen Köln/Bonn GmbH v Hauptzollamt Köln

(Case C-226/07) (1)

1

(Directive 2003/96/EC - Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity - Article 14(1)(a) - Exemption for energy products used to produce electricity - Option to impose taxation for reasons of environmental policy - Direct effect of the exemption)

(2008/C 223/23)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Flughafen Köln/Bonn GmbH

Applicant:

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Köln

Defendant:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Interpretation of Article 14(1)(a) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity (OJ 2003 L 283, p. 51) — Direct effect — National legislation not exempting gas oil used to produce electricity from mineral oil tax

Operative part of the judgment

Article 14(1)(a) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity, in so far as it provides for the exemption from taxation under that directive of energy products used to produce electricity, has direct effect in the sense that it may be relied upon by an individual before national courts — in relation to a period of time during which the Member State concerned was in default of its obligation to transpose that directive into its national law within the prescribed period — in a dispute, such as that in the main proceedings, between that individual and the customs authorities of that State, for the purpose of having national legislation which is incompatible with that provision disapplied and, consequently, obtaining a refund of tax which infringed that provision.

---

(1)  OJ C 155, 7.7.2007.

1

---
EXHIBIT 32.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

     Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of
Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code), each of the undersigned
officers of Inn of the Mountain Gods Resort and Casino (the "Company") does
hereby certify with respect to the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q
for the period ended October 31, 2005 (the "REPORT") that:

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

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



Dated:   December 15, 2005                 By:  /s/ Brian D. Parrish
                                               ---------------------------------
                                           Name:    Brian D. Parrish
                                           Title:   Chief Executive Officer


Dated:   December 15, 2005                 By:  /s/ Lance Kintz
                                               ---------------------------------
                                           Name:    Lance Kintz
                                           Title:   Chief Financial Officer


     The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of
the United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a
separate disclosure document.
# C_2008051EN.01003002.xml

| 23.2.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/30

---

Order of the Court of 19 October 2007 — Derya Beyatli v Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-238/07 P) (1)

1

(Appeals - Staff cases - Open competition for citizens of the Republic of Cyprus - Notice of competition - Time-limits - Complaint - Letter addressed to the head of the Commission delegation in Cyprus)

(2008/C 51/51)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Derya Beyatli (represented by: A. Demetriades, dikigoros)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and H. Kraemer, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Appeal against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 5 March 2007 in Case T-455/04 Beyatli and Candan v Commission by which the Court of First Instance dismissed as inadmissible an application seeking the annulment of the decision of the selection board in Competition EPSO/A/1/03 for the establishment of a reserve list of assistant administrators of Cypriot nationality not to admit the appellants to the oral tests in that competition — Period within which a complaint must be lodged pursuant to Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations

Beyatli and Candan

Commission

Operative part of the order

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Ms Beyatli to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ms Beyatli to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 183, 4.8.2007.

1

---
# C_2013101EN.01001501.xml

| 6.4.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 101/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.4.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 101/15

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 February 2013 — EuroChem MCC v Council

(Case T-84/07) (1)

1

(Dumping - Imports of solutions of urea and ammonium nitrate originating in Russia - Request for an expiry review - Request for an interim review - Admissibility - Normal value - Export price - Articles 1, 2 and 11(1) to (3) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (now Articles 1, 2 and 11(1) to (3) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009))

2013/C 101/31

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: EuroChem Mineral and Chemical Company OAO (EuroChem MCC) (Moscow, Russia) (represented: initially by P. Vander Schueren and B. Evtimov, lawyers, and subsequently by B. Evtimov and D. O’Keeffe, Solicitor)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix and B. Driessen, Agents, and by G. Berrisch, lawyer)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. van Vliet and K. Talabér Ritz, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action for annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 1911/2006 of 19 December 2006 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of solutions of urea and ammonium nitrate originating in Algeria, Belarus, Russia and Ukraine following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (OJ 2006 L 365, p. 26).

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders EuroChem Mineral and Chemical Company OAO (EuroChem MCC) to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders EuroChem Mineral and Chemical Company OAO (EuroChem MCC) to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union;

| 3. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 117, 26.5.2007.

1

---
# C_2009113EN.01003201.xml

| 16.5.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 113/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.5.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 113/32

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 24 March 2009 — Moreira da Fonseca v OHIM — General Óptica (GENERAL OPTICA)

(Joined Cases T-318/06 to T-321/06) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Multi-coloured Community figurative marks GENERAL OPTICA - Earlier business name Generalóptica - Relative ground for refusal - Local significance of the earlier sign - Articles 8(4) and 52(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

2009/C 113/64

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Alberto Jorge Moreira da Fonseca, Lda (Santo Tirso, Portugal) (represented by: M. Oehen Mendes and D. Jeffries, lawyers)

Applicant:

da

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Novais Gonçalves, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: General Óptica, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: M. Curell Aguilà and X. Fàbrega Sabaté, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance:

Re:

Re:

Four actions brought against the decisions of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 August 2006 (Cases R 944/2005-1, R 945/2005-1, R 946/2005-1 and R 947/2005-1), concerning four sets of invalidity proceedings between Alberto Jorge Moreira da Fonseca, Lda and General Óptica, SA

da

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the actions. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the actions.

| 2. | Orders Alberto Jorge Moreira da Fonseca, Lda to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Alberto Jorge Moreira da Fonseca, Lda to pay the costs.

da

---

(1)  OJ C 236, 30.12.2006.

1

---
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3944 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3944

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend for one year tax-
  free distributions from individual retirement plans for charitable 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 28, 2014

 Mr. Grayson introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend for one year tax-
  free distributions from individual retirement plans for charitable 
                               purposes.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF TAX-FREE DISTRIBUTIONS FROM INDIVIDUAL 
              RETIREMENT PLANS FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES.

    (a) In General.--Subparagraph (F) of section 408(d)(8) of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``December 31, 
2013'' and inserting ``December 31, 2014''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to distributions made in taxable years beginning after December 31, 
2013.
                                 <all>
```
STATE v. Curtis Loius SANGSTER.

No. 84P15-3.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 17, 2016.

Curtis Louis Sangster, Raleigh, for Sangster, Curtis L.

*500Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of N.C.

N. Lorrin Freeman, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 12th of January 2016 by Defendant for Writ of Prohibition:

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

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-1172

MEI YING LIN,

Petitioner,

v.

MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals.

Submitted: September 24, 2008 Decided: October 8, 2008

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas V. Massucci, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Gregory G.

Katsas, Assistant Attorney General, Carol Federighi, Senior

Litigation Counsel, Mona Maria Yousif, Office of Immigration

Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.,

for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Mei Ying Lin, a native and citizen of the People’s

Republic of China, petitions for review of an order of the Board of

Immigration Appeals dismissing her appeal from the immigration

judge’s denial of her requests for asylum, withholding of removal,

and protection under the Convention Against Torture.

Lin first challenges the determination that she failed to

establish her eligibility for asylum. To obtain reversal of a

determination denying eligibility for relief, an alien “must show

that the evidence [s]he presented was so compelling that no

reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of

persecution.” INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 (1992).

We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude that Lin fails

to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Accordingly,

we cannot grant the relief that she seeks.

Additionally, we uphold the denial of Lin’s request for

withholding of removal. “Because the burden of proof for

withholding of removal is higher than for asylum--even though the

facts that must be proved are the same--an applicant who is

ineligible for asylum is necessarily ineligible for withholding of

removal under [8 U.S.C.] § 1231(b)(3).” Camara v. Ashcroft, 378

F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir. 2004). Because Lin failed to show that she

is eligible for asylum, she cannot meet the higher standard for

withholding of removal.
*

Lin’s brief merely recites the requirements for establishing

a claim under the Convention Against Torture. She fails to raise

any specific claims in this regard and has therefore waived

appellate review. See Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(9)(A) (“[T]he argument

. . . must contain . . . appellant’s contentions and the reasons

for them, with citations to the authorities and parts of the record

on which the appellant relies.”); Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178

F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999) (“Failure to comply with the

specific dictates of [Rule 28] with respect to a particular claim

triggers abandonment of that claim on appeal.”); see also

Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 182, 189 n.7 (4th Cir. 2004).

3

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review.* 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.

PETITION DENIED
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. Section 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report ofSterling Gold Corp.(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended April 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I,Allen Collins, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)
     The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(2)
     The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


Dated this 14thday of June, 2007.

ALLEN COLLINSAllen CollinsChief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer



















---