alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2008209EN.01001701.xml

| 15.8.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 209/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 209/17

---

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 5 May 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy)) — Hospital Consulting Srl, ATI HC, Kodak SpA, Tecnologie Sanitarie SpA v Esaote SpA, ATI, Ital Tbs, Telematic & Biomedical Service SpA, Draeger Medica Italia SpA, Officina Biomedica Divisione Servizi SpA

(Case C-386/07) (1)

1

(Rules of procedure - Articles 92(1) and 104(3) - Community competition rules - National rules concerning lawyers' fees - Setting of professional scales of charges - Partial inadmissibility - Answers to questions which may be deduced from the case-law of the Court)

(2008/C 209/23)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties

Applicants: Hospital Consulting Srl, ATI HC, Kodak SpA, Tecnologie Sanitarie SpA

Applicants:

Defendants: Esaote SpA, ATI, Ital Tbs Telematic & Biomedical Service SpA, Draeger Medica Italia SpA, Officina Biomedica Divisione Servizi SpA

Defendants:

Intervener: Azienda Sanitaria locale ULSS No 15 (Alta Padovana, Regione Veneto, Italy)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consiglio di Stato — Interpretation of Articles 10 and 81(1) EC and Directive 98/5/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 to facilitate practice of the profession of lawyer on a permanent basis in a Member State other than that in which the qualification was obtained (OJ 1998 L 77, p. 36) — Fixing by a national professional organisation of mandatory tariffs for lawyers' services subject to ministerial approval — National rules prohibiting judges in decisions on costs from derogating from the set minimum fees

Operative part of the order

| 1. | Articles 10 EC and 81 EC do not preclude a national law which in principle prohibits derogation from minimum fees approved by ministerial decree, on the basis of a draft drawn up by a professional body of members of the Bar such as the Consiglia nazionale forense, and which also prohibits the judge, when he decides the amount of costs that the unsuccessful party must pay to the other party, from derogating from those minimum fees. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Articles 10 EC and 81 EC do not preclude a national law which in principle prohibits derogation from minimum fees approved by ministerial decree, on the basis of a draft drawn up by a professional body of members of the Bar such as the Consiglia nazionale forense, and which also prohibits the judge, when he decides the amount of costs that the unsuccessful party must pay to the other party, from derogating from those minimum fees.

| 2. | The third question referred by the Consiglio di Stato by decision of 13 January 2006 is clearly inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The third question referred by the Consiglio di Stato by decision of 13 January 2006 is clearly inadmissible.

---

(1)  OJ C 283, 24.11.2007.

1

---
### 1 D ISCIPLINARY C OUNSEL v . B RUEGGEMAN
. [Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Brueggeman , ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2021-Ohio-21.] (No. 2019-1734

— Submitted January 7, 2021

— Decided January 11, 2021.)
O N A PPLICATION FOR R EINSTATEMENT

.

____________________ {¶ 1} This cause came on for further consideration upon the filing of an application for reinstatement by respondent, Edward Paul Bruegg eman, Attorney Registration No. 0029159, last known bus iness address in Mason, Ohio. {¶ 2} The court coming now to consider its order of April 23, 2020, w herein the court, pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(12)(A)(3), suspended respon dent for a period of two years, with the final 18 months stayed on condition, fin ds that respondent has substantially complied with t hat order and with the provisi ons of Gov.Bar R. V(24). {¶ 3} Therefore, it is ordered by this court that respondent is reins tated to the practice of law i n the state of Ohio. {¶ 4} It is further ordered that the clerk of this court issue certif ied copies of this order as provided for in Gov.Bar R. V(17)(E)(1) and tha t publication be made as provided for in Gov.Bar R. V(17)(E)(2). {¶ 5} For earlier case, see Disciplinary Counsel v. Brueggeman , 160 Ohio St.3d 198, 2020-Ohio-1578, 155 N.E.3d 833.
O’C ONNOR , C.J., and K ENNEDY , F ISCHER , D E W INE , D ONNELLY , S TEWART , and B RUNNER , JJ., concur.

________________________
EX-10.2



 Exhibit 10.2 

AMENDMENT NO. 1 
 TO THE
AMENDED AND RESTATED BLACKROCK, INC. 
 1999 STOCK AWARD AND INCENTIVE PLAN 

(Effective November 11, 2010) 

This Amendment No. 1 is made to the Amended and Restated BlackRock, Inc. 1999 Stock Award and Incentive Plan (the “Incentive
Plan”). Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Incentive Plan. 
 In accordance
with Section 3 of the Plan, the Management Development and Compensation Committee of BlackRock, Inc.’s Board of Directors at a meeting held on November 11, 2010 unanimously approved the following amendment to the Plan: 

 

	 	1.	Section 6(b)(vi) of the Incentive Plan is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows: 


(vi) Other Stock- or Cash-Based Awards. The Committee is authorized to grant Awards to Participants in the form of Other Stock-Based
Awards or Cash-Based Awards, as deemed by the Committee to be consistent with the purposes of the Plan. Awards granted pursuant to this paragraph may be granted with value and payment contingent upon the attainment of certain Performance Goals, so
long as such goals relate to periods of performance in excess of one calendar year. The Committee shall determine the terms and conditions of such Awards at the date of grant or thereafter. The maximum payment that any Grantee who is a “covered
employee” within the meaning of Section 162(m) may receive pursuant to a Cash-Based Award granted under this paragraph in respect of any single fiscal year during a performance period shall be $1,000,000. Payments earned hereunder may be
decreased or increased in the sole discretion of the Committee based on such factors as it deems appropriate. 
  

	 	2.	Except as provided herein, the Incentive Plan shall remain in full force and effect.
Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionshould not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt except under the limit ed circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 60758 Su m m ar y Cal endar

GL O KAUF M AN, b ya n d T h r o u g h H e rD a u g h te ra n d A tt o r n e y -in -F a c t, D e b r a h K a u fm a n , P l a i n ti ff-A p p ell a n t,

ve r s us RO BI N SON PROPER TY GRO U P LI M I TED PAR TNE RSH I P, D o in gB u s in e s s a s H o r s e s h o e C a s in o & H o te l, D efen da n t

- A pp el l ee.

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt fo rth e N o r th e r n D is tr ic t o f M is s is s ip p i

N o. 2: 07- C V

- 48

B ef ore D AV IS, SM ITH , an d D E N N IS, C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R I A M: * United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D April 19, 2010 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk Case: 09-60758 Document: 00511084677 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/19/2010N o. 09- 60758

2 G l o K aufm an, pr oc ee di ng pro se , a p p e a ls a s u m m a r yju d g m e n t t h a t is b a s e d o n j u d i c i a le s t o p p e l

. F i n d i n gn o e r r o r , w e a f f i r m. T h e fa c ts a n d in itia l p r o c e e d in g s a r e d e s c r ib e d in th e p r io ro p in io n o f th is
c o u r t, K a ufm a n v . R o b in so n Prop er ty G ro u p L im itedPa rtn er sh ip , 3 3 1 F . A p p ’x 2 7 6 ( 5 t h C i r . 2 0 0 8 ) ( p e r c u r i a m)

. A f t e r r e ma n d , t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r tg r a n t e d s u mm a r yju d g m e n t t o th e d e fe n d a n t o n th e b a s is o f ju d ic ia l e s to p p e l. T h e di st ri ctcourtexpl i cat ed i t s rul i n g i n a t h orough an d rel i able M em or andum O pi ni on f

i l ed M ay 15, 2009. I texpl ai ned t hatK aufm an t houghts he had a vali d p ersonali nj u ry cl ai m w h en she f i l ed h er ban kru ptcy p et i t i on b u tfai l ed t o i n cl u de t h e potenti al cl ai m i n h er requ i red ban kru ptcy st atem en t s. T h e court properl y reasoned t h at “t h ere i s cl ear inconsi st en cy b et w een stat i n g by om i ssi on
o n he rM ar c h 1 6, 2 006 b ank r upt c y pe t i t i o n . . . t hats he ha d no c l ai m s a r i s i ng fr o m h e ra lle g e d J a n u a r y3 1 , 2 0 0 3 inju r y a n d p u r s u in g th o s e c la im s b e fo r e th is court begi n n i n g w i t h the f i l i n g of h er M arch 26, 2 007 C om pl ai n t
. ” Th e courtf u rt h er noted t h at “ ‘ [ a] l l eged conf u si on as t o a l i m i t ati on s p eri od does n otevi n ce a l ac k of know l edge as t o t he e xi st enc e o f t he c l ai m ’” (c i t i ng I

n r e S u p e r i o rC r e wboa t s, I n c. , 3 7 4 F .3d 3 3 0 , 3 3 4 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 4 )). K aufm an di d no tpr o pe r l y pur s ue he rpur po r t e d c l ai m . H e ri nc o ns i s t e nt posi t i on s r esul ti n j u di ci alest opp el

. T h e su m m ary j u dg m en ti s A F F IR M E D , essen ti a l l y for th e rea son s give n by the distri ct cou rt. Case: 09-60758 Document: 00511084677 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/19/2010
1203.

#### Cowart *v.*Powell.

Distraint, from city court of Miller county — Judge Bush. April. 17, 1908.

Submitted July 14,

Decided October 26, 1908.

*Bush & Stapleton, Perry D. Rich,*for plaintiff in error.

*William I. Geer,*contra.

Powell, J.

1. A party who submits to a ruling as to the sufficiency of the pleadings, for any purpose, by voluntarily filing an amendment to. meet the views of the court, waives his right to make exceptions on the ground that the amendment was unnecessary. *Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.*v. *Hart Lumber Co., 2 Ga. App.*88 (58 S. E. 316), and cit.

2. The case, as finally narrowed by the pleadings and the evidence, involved only one question: “Did the defendant contract to rent the-land from the plaintiff?” The trial judge fairly submitted this question to the jury, and has approved their finding; this court is therefore, without jurisdiction to interfere. *Judgment affirmed.*
**Exhibit      32.2**

**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**

| (i)   | the                Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)                of                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934:                and |
|-----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (ii)   | the                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the                Company. |
|------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/ Leighton              J. Stephenson                                                                               |   |   |   |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
| Name:                Leighton J. StephensonChief                Financial OfficerDate: August                21, 2006 |   |   |        |

----
# C_2008272EN.01002602.xml

| 25.10.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 272/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.10.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 272/26

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 3 September 2008 — Cofra v Commission

(Case T-477/07) (1)

1

(Action for annulment - Access to documents - Withdrawal of the decision refusing access - Disclosure of documents contrary to the express opinion of their author - No need to adjudicate)

(2008/C 272/50)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Cofra srl (Bari, Italy) (represented by: A. Calabrese, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. Costa de Oliveira and G. Conte, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Annulment of the decision of the Commission of 17 October 2007 refusing the applicant access to certain documents sent by the Italian authorities to the Commission in proceedings concerning an aid scheme

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | Each party shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Each party shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 64, 8.3.2008.

1

---
1367.

#### Turner *v.*The State.

Accusation of carrying concealed weapon, from city court of Dawson — Judge Edwards. August 1, .1908.

Submitted October 8,

Decided October 26, 1908.

*Marlin &*Hoyl, for plaintiff in error.

*M. J. Yeomans, solicitor,*contra.

Hill, C. J.

1. The showing for a continuance, based, on the absence of a. witness, did not measure up to the requirements of the Penal Code, § 9G2, and was properly overruled.

2. No other error of law is assigned, and the verdict is supported by the-evidence. *Judgment affirmed.*
Robbie Dean TERRY, Christopher Wayne Cook, Joshua Michael Barnhardt, Kevin Barringer, Brian M. Black, Barry Neal Burnette, Scott Casner, Demetrius Ray Clark, Robert Redell Dial, Malcom Eason, Gary W. Edwards, A.J. Gordon, Richard Hall, Derek Heintz, Lloyd Corey Hughes, Paul Daniel Hughes, Alan Michael Humphrey, Robert Mitchell Hunt, Stephen Hunt, Tully Langley, Charles Mack Latham, James Kelvin Locklear, Joe Travis Locklear, Johnny Ray Locklear, Michael Loukos, Samuel E. McLawhorn, Jerry L. Murphy, Rod Murphy, Nekime Matu Oxendine, Scott Richardson, Katherine Roberts, Jackie Rose, Eric C. Roten, Eric Schwartz, B. M. Sellers, Jr., Daniel T. Sharpe, Bradley D. Sudduth, Corey Thompson, Joshua S. Vernon, Michael Bailey, Jonathan Cochran, Kasey Cornwell, Blake Fisher, Angelis Geneao, Kathryn Geneao, Terry Gillespie, Brandon Sherrod Johnson, Mark Melvin, Jonathan Miller, Kurt D. Mills, Frank Odell, Jonathan Jason Sherill, Jason Stewart, Chad Thomas Walker and Benjamin Shane Young, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons v. STATE of North Carolina, Patrick L. McCrory, Governor of the State of North Carolina, in his official capacity, Lee Harris Roberts, State Budget Director, in his official capacity, Dr. Linda Morrison Combs, State Controller, in her official capacity, and Frank L. Perry, Secretary, North Carolina Department of Public Safety, in his official capacity

No. 67P17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 8, 2017

Frederick S. Barbour, Attorney at Law, W. Scott Jones, Attorney at Law, Asheville, David A. Wijewickrama, Attorney at Law, Waynesville, for Terry, Robbie Dean, et al.

Marc Bernstein, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of North Carolina, et al.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the conditional petition filed on the 14th of March 2017 by Defendants 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:

"Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th of June 2017."
CATAWBA COUNTY, et al. v. LOGGINS

152PA16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 10, 2017

Mr. J. David Abernethy, Attorney at Law, Mr. David W. Hood, Attorney at Law, Hickory, for Catawba County (by and through its Child Support Agency), et al.

Mr. Blair E. Cody, III, Attorney at Law, Hickory, for Loggins, Jason.

Mr. John F. Maddrey, Solicitor General, Mr. Gerald K. Robbins, Special Deputy Attorney *503General, Mr. Benjamin J. Kull, Assistant Attorney General, for N.C. Department of Health and Human Services.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 7th of March 2017 by Plaintiff to Allow Amicus Curiae to Participate in Oral Argument:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of March 2017."
Order entered July 31, 2018

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-18-00686-CV

IN RE STATE OF TEXAS, Relator

Original Proceeding from the County Court at Law No. 6

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 006-00545-2016

ORDER

Before Justices Lang, Myers, and Whitehill

Before the Court is relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. We request that the real 

party in interest and respondent file their responses, if any, to the petition for writ of mandamus 

by August 14, 2018.

/s/ DOUGLAS S. LANG 

PRESIDING JUSTICE
Shreve v. N.C. Dept. of Justice, et al.

151P14-3

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 9, 2016

Ms. Kimberly Shreve, Pro Se

Mr. Christopher McLennan, Assistant Attorney General, For N.C. Department of Justice, et al.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 18th of March 2016 by Plaintiff for Leave to File Amended Complaint:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of June 2016."
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

HECTOR SANCHEZ-SANTILLAN, a.k.a.

Miguel Sanchez-Lopez, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 18-50035 

D.C. No. 3:17-cr-02601-LAB

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 12, 2018**

Before: RAWLINSON, CLIFTON, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

Hector Sanchez-Santillan appeals from the district court’s judgment and 

challenges the 24-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for 

attempted reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

JUN 15 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 18-50035

Sanchez-Santillan contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable 

because the aggravating circumstances identified by the district court were 

insufficient to justify an upward variance from the Guidelines range and the district 

court placed too much weight on his prior domestic violence conviction. The 

district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Sanchez-Santillan’s sentence. 

See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Contrary to Sanchez-Santillan’s 

argument, the district court explicitly and repeatedly stated that it considered his 

domestic violence conviction to “a lesser extent.” The district court primarily

focused on Sanchez-Santillan’s 17 previous deportations and exclusions, and the 

failure of a prior 12-month-and-one-day sentence for his last immigration offense

to deter him from returning unlawfully. In light of the totality of the 

circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, the aboveGuidelines sentence is substantively reasonable. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.

AFFIRMED.
**THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS**

**Post Office Box 12248**

**Austin, Texas 78711**

**(512) 463-1312**

September 26, 2008

Mr. Terry Wesley Baker

Baker Law Office

6775 State Highway 123 North

P.O. Box 33

Geronimo, TX 78115

Mr. Christopher John Deeves

Ball & Weed, P.C.

10001 Reunion Place Blvd., Ste. 600

San Antonio, TX 78216

RE:Case Number:  06-0611

Court of Appeals Number:  04-05-00868-CV

Trial Court Number:  2005-CI-07266

Style:MAURICIO MARTINEZ-PARTIDO

v.

METHODIST SPECIALTY AND TRANSPLANT HOSPITAL; METHODIST HEALTHCARE SYSTEM OF SAN ANTONIO, LTD., L.L.P. D/B/A METHODIST SPECIALTY AND TRANSPLANT HOSPITAL; JANE OR JOHN DOE(S), HOSPITAL EMPLOYEE(S); AND JANE OR JOHN DOE(S), HOSPITAL NURSE(S)

Dear Counsel:

Today the Supreme Court of Texas delivered the enclosed per curiam opinion and judgment in the above-referenced cause.  

Sincerely,

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

by Claudia Jenks, Chief Deputy Clerk

Enclosures

**Case No. 06-0611Page 1**
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 Quarterly Report of RG Global Lifestyles, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard Lambright, Principal Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2001, that:





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





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





Dated:  August 17, 2009




/s/ Richard LambrightRichard LambrightPrincipal Accounting Officer