alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2008236EN.01001401.xml

| 13.9.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 236/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.9.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 236/14

---

Action brought on 15 July 2008 — Meyer-Falk v Commission

(Case T-251/06)

(2008/C 236/23)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Thomas Meyer-Falk (Bruchsal, Germany) (represented by: S. Crosby, Solicitor)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the contested decision;

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

—

Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant contests the Commission's decision of 6 November 2006, by which it refused the applicant access to two documents relating to the fight against organised crime and to judicial reform in Bulgaria. Prior to the commencement of the proceedings, the applicant made an application for the grant of legal aid, which was granted by the Court of First Instance by decision of 21 January 2008.

In support of its action the applicant claims, first, in essence, that the defendant has infringed the principle of sound administration, since the applicant's application for access to the documents was refused despite the fact that the documents were made accessible to the public with the exception of the applicant.

The applicant claims, second, that the application of Article 4(1)(a) and (b) and Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1) is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment.

1

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

1

---
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-81,768-01

IN RE RAMON CASTILLO, Relator

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS

CAUSE NO. 85-CR-3655-A FROM BEXAR COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Relator has filed a motion for leave to file a writ of mandamus pursuant to the original

jurisdiction of this Court. In it, he contends that he filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus

in Bexar County, that more than 35 days have elapsed, and that the application has not yet been

forwarded to this Court.

In these circumstances, additional facts are needed. Respondent, the District Clerk of Bexar

County, is ordered to file a response, which may be made by submitting the record on such habeas

corpus application, submitting a copy of a timely filed order which designates issues to be

investigated (see McCree v. Hampton, 824 S.W.2d 578, 579 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992)), or stating that

Relator has not filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus in Bexar County. Should the response
-2-

include an order designating issues, proof of the date the district attorney’s office was served with

the habeas application shall also be submitted with the response. This application for leave to file

a writ of mandamus shall be held in abeyance until Respondent has submitted the appropriate

response. Such response shall be submitted within 30 days of the date of this order.

Filed: July 30, 2014

Do not publish
WYN-EX10.1_2014.6.30.Q2




Exhibit 10.1
AMENDMENT NO. 4


TO


EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


AMENDMENT, dated May 15, 2014 (“Amendment”), made to the Employment Agreement dated as of November 19, 2009, as amended by Amendment No. 1 thereto effective as of March 1, 2011,  Amendment No. 2 thereto effective as of March 15, 2013, and Amendment No. 3 thereto effective as of February 28, 2014 (together, the “Employment Agreement”), by and between Wyndham Worldwide Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and Franz Hanning (the “Executive”).  


WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive have previously entered into the Employment Agreement and desire to amend the Employment Agreement as set forth below.


NOW, THEREFORE, effective as of the date first written above, the Employment Agreement is hereby amended as follows: 


1.The first sentence of Section III of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended in its entirety and replaced with the following:
 
The period of the Executive’s employment under this Agreement (the “Period of Employment”) began on August 1, 2009 (the “Effective Date”) and shall end on August 1, 2017, subject to earlier termination as provided in this Agreement.


2.    Section VII.A.i. and Section VIII.C.iv. of the Employment Agreement are each hereby amended to replace the reference to “$800,000” with “$900,000” consistent with Amendment No. 3 to the Employment Agreement.


3.    From and after the date hereof, all references to the Employment Agreement shall mean the Employment Agreement as amended hereby. Except as expressly amended hereby, the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect, and is hereby ratified and confirmed.




[Signature Page Follows.]





1




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused this Amendment to be executed this 15th day of May 2014.


EXECUTIVE


/s/ Franz Hanning                     
Franz Hanning
WYNDHAM WORLDWIDE CORPORATION 

 
By:  /s/ Mary Falvey                 
    Name:    Mary Falvey 
    Title:    Executive Vice President

2
State of North Carolina v. Antonio Freeman

No. 405P16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 8, 2016

Daniel P. O'Brien, Special Deputy Attorney General, Joseph L. Hyde, Assistant Attorney General, Valerie Mitchell Asbell, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

Bruce T. Cunningham, Jr., Attorney at Law, Southern Pines, for Freeman, Antonio.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 31st of October 2016 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Northampton County, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court of that County:

*333"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th of December 2016."
Exhibit 32.1**CERTIFICATION**     Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title18 of the United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Inn of the Mountain Gods Resortand Casino (the “***Company***”) does hereby certify with respect to the Quarterly Report of the Companyon Form 10-Q for the period ended October 31, 2007 (the “***Report***”) that:1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.       Date: December 14, 2007 By
1155.

#### Jordan *v.*Farmers and Merchants Bank.

Hill, C. J.

1. “Mere non-action by the creditor will not release the-surety, unless such non-action makes unproductive some collateral security, . . or is based upon a consideration paid by the principal debtor to the creditor, or he is not notified under the statute to-collect the debt.” *Lumsden*v. *Leonard,*55 *Ga.*374; Civil Code, §2972.

2. Verbal requests, however urgent and frequent, by a surety to the creditor, to take action to collect the debt from the principal debtor, will not relieve the surety. To avail the surety, the request or notice to the creditor to collect the debt out of the principal debtor must be in writing and in conformity to the statute on that subject. Civil Code, §2974; *Souter v. Bank,*94 *Ga.*713 (20 S. E. 111).

3. A creditor who holds an execution against both principal and surety may, at his election, proceed against the property of either. *Manry*v. *Sheppard,*57 *Ga.*68.

4. The failure or refusal of the creditor to prove the debt in bankruptcy against the principal debtor will not discharge the surety. Bankruptcy act of 1898, § 16, 30 St. 550 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3428).

5. Where an affidavit of illegality has been dismissed on demurrer, for *245insufficiency, tlie jury may be authorized to infer therefrom that it was filed for delay only; and a verdict assessing damages at less than twenty-five per cent, of the principal debt, in favor of the plaintiff in execution and against the defendant in execution, for delay, will not be disturbed, where there is any evidence to support it, unless for some material error of law. Civil Code, §4739.

Illegality, from city court of Sandersville — ’Judge Brannen presiding. March 25, 1908.

Argued July 2,

Decided November 25, 1908.

*E. L. Stephens,*for plaintiff in error.

*G. H. Howard, Hines & Jordan,*contra.

6. Assignments of error, not insisted on or alluded to in the argument or brief, will be treated as abandoned.

7. No error appears, and the verdict was fully authorized.

*Judgment affirmed.*
**Judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 16 December 2008 – Deichmann‐Schuhe v OHIM – Design for Woman (DEITECH)**

**(Case T-86/07)**

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for figurative Community trade mark DEITECH – Earlier national and international figurative trade marks DEI-tex – Relative ground for refusal – Genuine use of the earlier mark – Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

Community trade mark – Observations of third parties and opposition – Examination of the opposition – Proof of use of the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 4(2) and (3)) (see paras 36-37)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 January 2007 (Case R 791/2006-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Heinrich Deichmann-Schuhe GmbH & Co. KG and Design for Woman SA. |

**Information relating to the case**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| Applicant for the Community trade mark: | Design for Woman SA |
| Community trade mark sought: | Figurative mark DEITECH for goods in Classes 18 and 25 – Application No 3378643 |
| Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: | Heinrich Deichmann-Schuhe GmbH & Co. KG |
| Marks or signs cited in opposition: | German and international figurative marks DEI-tex for goods in Class 25; opposition to the application for registration being brought against registration for that class |
| Decision of the Opposition Division: | Opposition dismissed |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Appeal dismissed |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Partially annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 22 January 2007 (Case R 791/2006-2) in so far as it finds that genuine use of the earlier marks has not been proven in respect of ‘shoes’ in Class 25 covered by the application for a Community trade mark; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Dismisses the remainder of the action; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 3. | | Orders OHIM to pay the costs. |
# C_2011226EN.01002203.xml

| 30.7.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 226/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.7.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 226/22

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 June 2011 — FMC v Commission

(Case T-197/06) (1)

1

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Hydrogen peroxide and sodium perborate - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Imputability of the infringement - Rights of the defence - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based)

2011/C 226/44

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: FMC Corp. (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States) (represented by: C. Stanbrook QC and Y. Virvilis, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by F. Arbault, and subsequently by V. Di Bucci, V. Bottka and X. Lewis, Agents, and by M. Gray, Barrister)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 1766 final of 3 May 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.620 — Hydrogen peroxide and perborate), in so far as it concerns the applicant and, in the alternative, a reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders FMC Corp. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders FMC Corp. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 212, 2.9.2006.

1

---
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 22, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136750 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

Justices 

v SC: 136750 

 COA: 281517 

Oakland CC: 06-206756-FC 

JOSEPH LEVEIL McCAULEY,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 1, 2008 order of 

the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that 

the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

0915 

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 22, 2008 

 Clerk
** **

** **

**Exhibit 23.1**

**Consent of Independent Registered PublicAccounting Firm**

Tripos, Inc.

St. Louis, Missouri

We hereby consent to theincorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No.33-79610, 333-09459, 333-33163, 333-61829, 333-102015 and 333-102065) ofTripos, Inc. of our report dated March 02, 2006, except for the first paragraphof Note 22, which is as of April 7, 2006 and the second and fourth paragraphsof Note 27, which are as of March 21, 2006 relating to the consolidated financialstatements and schedules, which appear in this Form 10-K.

                                                                                                                                              /s/BDO Seidman, LLP

Chicago, Illinois                                                                                                   

April10, 2006

----
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3853 

To amend the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to prohibit Government contributions under the Federal employees health benefit program 

towards Exchange health insurance coverage of Members of Congress. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 10, 2014 

Mr. REED (for himself, Mr. STUTZMAN, and Mr. SOUTHERLAND) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on House Administration 

A BILL 

To amend the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 

to prohibit Government contributions under the Federal 

employees health benefit program towards Exchange 

health insurance coverage of Members of Congress. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘No Special Treatment 

5 for Members of Congress Act’’. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3853 IH

1 SEC. 2. NO GOVERNMENT CONTRIBUTIONS UNDER FEHB 

2 TOWARDS EXCHANGE HEALTH INSURANCE 

3 COVERAGE OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1312(d)(3)(D) of the Pa5 tient Protection and Affordable Care Act (42 U.S.C. 

6 18032(d)(3)(D)) is amended by adding at the end the fol7 lowing new clause: 

8 ‘‘(iii) NO GOVERNMENT CONTRIBU9 TION UNDER FEHB.—No Government con10 tribution under section 8906 of title 5, 

11 United States Code, shall be provided on 

12 behalf of an individual who is a Member of 

13 Congress for coverage made available to 

14 such individual pursuant to this subpara15 graph.’’. 

16 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

17 subsection (a) shall apply as if included in the enactment 

18 of section 1312(d)(3)(D) of the Patient Protection and Af19 fordable Care Act (42 U.S.C. 18032(d)(3)(D)). 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 32.2





ESSEX PROPERTY TRUST, INC.


Certification of Chief Financial Officer


Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted


Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002




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), I, Michael T. Dance, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that the amendment no. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2011 (the “Form 10-K”) of Essex Property Trust, Inc. fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Essex Property Trust, Inc. at the dates of and for the periods presented.





Date: February 29, 2012
/s/ Michael T. DanceMichael T. DanceChief Financial Officer, Executive Vice President,Essex Property Trust, Inc.
**Exhibit 32.1**

**Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

I,Michael V. Mecca, as President and Chief Executive Officer of BH/RE, L.L.C.(the “Company”), certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to myknowledge:

(A)  the accompanying Quarterly Report onForm 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2007, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”) fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

(B)  the information in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

Dated: May15, 2007
|        | /S/ Michael V. Mecca                                                 |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Michael V. Mecca                                                     |
|   | President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal  Executive Officer) |

 

----
* 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. 08-40067

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOSE BRUNO ESPINOZA-SEGUNDO, also known as Roberto Gaiton

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:04-CR-177-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

TheFederalPublic Defender appointed to represent Jose Bruno EspinozaSegundo (Espinoza) has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in

accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Espinoza has not

filed a response. Our independent review of the record and counsel’s brief

discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 10, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
Exhibit
      32.1





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, each of the undersigned officers of PureDepth,
      Inc.
      do hereby certify that:





(a)
      the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of PureDepth, Inc. for the period ended
      April 30, 2006 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of
      Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(b)
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of PureDepth,
      Inc.











Dated:
      September 12, 2007








/s/
      Thomas L. Marcus





Thomas
      L.
      Marcus


Interim
      Chief Executive Officer











/s/
      Jonathan J. McCaman





Jonathan
      J. McCaman Chief
        Financial Officer and
 Chief
        Accounting Officer
**Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) of 8 October 2008 – Helkon Media v Commission**

**(Case T-122/06)**

Arbitration clause – Programme to encourage the development, distribution and promotion of European audio-visual works (MEDIA Plus) – Demand for payment of financial aid – Existence of an arbitration clause – Compensation – Admissibility

Procedure – Referral to the Court of First Instance under an arbitration clause – Challenge to the validity of a compensation decision (Arts 230 EC, 238 EC and 249 EC; Council Regulation No 1605/2002) (see
paras 43-53)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ACTION under Article 238 EC for an order that the Commission pay to the applicant a sum allegedly owed under a contract relating to Community support for the project ‘DARK BLUE WORLD’ (Project No 2002-4212-0103DI010006DE). |

**Operative part**

The Court:

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

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders Helkon Media AG to pay the costs. |
State of North Carolina v. Calvin Denard Brown

No. 442P16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 26, 2017.

Ms. Kathryn L. VandenBerg, Attorney at Law, For Brown, Calvin Denard.

Mr. Daniel P. O'Brien, Ms. Nancy Vecchia, Special Deputy Attorney Generals, Ms. Sherri Lawrence, Assistant Attorney General, Mr. James R. O'Neill, District Attorney, For State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 6th of December 2016 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 26th of January 2017."
**Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 June 2008 – Commission v France**

**(Case C‐220/07)**

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2002/22/EC – Electronic communications – Designation of the undertakings entrusted with the provision of universal service – Incorrect transposition

Approximation of laws – Telecommunications sector – Universal service and users’ rights – Directive 2002/22 (European Parliament and Council Directive 2002/22, Arts 8(2), 12 and 13, and Annex IV) (see paras 30-34,
45-46)

**Re:**

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Incorrect transposition [of Articles 8, 12 and 13] of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (‘Universal Service Directive’) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 51) – Obligation to use an efficient, objective, transparent and non-discriminatory mechanism to designate undertakings entrusted with the provision of universal service – National legislation excluding | a priori | economic operators which are not capable of ensuring the provision of that service throughout the national territory. |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Declares that, by transposing into national law in the manner in which it did so the provisions concerning the designation of the undertakings capable of guaranteeing the provision of universal service, the French Republic failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 8(2), 12 and 13 of and Annex IV to Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (‘Universal Service Directive’); |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders the French Republic to bear the costs. |