alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2011226EN.01002302.xml

| 30.7.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 226/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.7.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 226/23

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 June 2011 — Heineken Nederland and Heineken v Commission

(Case T-240/07) (1)

1

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Netherlands beer market - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Proof of the infringement - Access to the file - Fines - Principle of equal treatment - Reasonable period)

2011/C 226/46

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Heineken Nederland BV (Zoeterwoude, Netherlands) and Heineken NV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: T. Ottervanger and M. de Jong, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by A. Bouquet, S. Noë and A Nijenhuis, and subsequently by A. Bouquet and S. Noë, acting as Agents, and M. Slotboom, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 1697 of 18 April 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/B/37.766 — Netherlands beer market) and, in the alternative, for reduction of the fine imposed on the applicants

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Article 1 of Commission Decision C(2007) 1697 of 18 April 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/B/37.766) in so far as the European Commission found in it that Heineken NV and Heineken Nederland BV had participated in an infringement consisting in the occasional coordination of commercial conditions, other than prices, offered to individual customers in the on-trade segment in the Netherlands; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Article 1 of Commission Decision C(2007) 1697 of 18 April 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/B/37.766) in so far as the European Commission found in it that Heineken NV and Heineken Nederland BV had participated in an infringement consisting in the occasional coordination of commercial conditions, other than prices, offered to individual customers in the on-trade segment in the Netherlands;

| 2. | Sets the amount of the fine imposed on Heineken and Heineken Nederland in Article 3(a) of Decision C(2007) 1697 at EUR 197 985 937,5; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Sets the amount of the fine imposed on Heineken and Heineken Nederland in Article 3(a) of Decision C(2007) 1697 at EUR 197 985 937,5;

| 3. | Dismisses the remainder of the action; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Dismisses the remainder of the action;

| 4. | Orders Heineken and Heineken Nederland to pay two-thirds of their own costs and of those of the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders Heineken and Heineken Nederland to pay two-thirds of their own costs and of those of the European Commission;

| 5. | Orders the Commission to pay one third of its own costs and of those of Heineken and Heineken Nederland. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Orders the Commission to pay one third of its own costs and of those of Heineken and Heineken Nederland.

---

(1)  OJ C 211, 8.9.2007.

1

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6739

AARON WAYNE PELLUM, 

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

STAN BURTT, Warden of Lieber Correctional Institution; NFN

BODISON, Associate Warden; NFN THOMPSON, Associate Warden; NFN

NETTLES, Major; NFN ELKA, Lieutenant; G. ANTLEY, Investigator

at Lieber Correctional Institution; NFN NUNLEY, Captain; NFN

SMITH, Doctor, all sued in their individual and official

capacity; L. CARRINGTON, Institutional Grievance Coordinator

at Lieber Correctional Institution, sued in her individual

capacity and official capacity, 

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Beaufort. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief

District Judge. (9:05-cv-03339-JFA)

Submitted: September 11, 2008 Decided: October 1, 2008

Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Aaron Wayne Pellum, Appellant Pro Se. Eugene P. Corrigan, III,

Jacqueline Gottfried Grau, GRIMBALL & CABANISS, Charleston, South

Carolina, for Appellees.
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Aaron Wayne Pellum seeks to appeal the district court’s

order accepting in part and rejecting in part the magistrate

judge’s recommendation and denying his motion for summary judgment

and denying in part and granting in part the Defendants’ motion for

summary judgment in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action. This

court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291 (2000), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28

U.S.C. § 1292 (2000); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial

Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order Pellum seeks to

appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or

collateral order. Accordingly, we grant the Appellees’ motion and

dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We deny Pellum’s

motions for appointment of counsel, a transcript at government

expense, to stay the proceedings, and for oral argument. 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
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

JAMES J. CHAPMAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

UNITED STATES, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

____________________ 

2010-5140 

______________________

 

 Appeal from the United States Court of Federal 

Claims in Case No. 09-CV-440, Judge Edward J. Damich. 

______________________ 

JUDGMENT 

______________________ 

RAYMOND J. TONEY, The Law Office of Raymond J. 

Toney, of Woodland, California, argued for plaintiffappellant. 

KENNETH D. WOODROW, Trial Attorney, Commercial 

Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States 

Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for 

defendant-appellee. With him on the brief were TONY 

WEST, Assistant Attorney General, JEANNE E. DAVIDSON, 

Director, and STEVEN J. GILLINGHAM, Assistant Director. 

______________________ 
THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (NEWMAN, LOURIE, and MOORE, Circuit 

Judges). 

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36. 

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

August 18, 2011 /s/ Jan Horbaly 

 Date Jan Horbaly 

 Clerk
STATE v. Terrence Lowell HYMAN

245A08-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 3, 2017

Mary Carla Babb, Assistant Attorney General, Nicholaos Vlahos, Assistant Attorney *521General, Valerie Mitchell Asbell, District Attorney, for State of NC.

Nicholas C. Woomer-Deters, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Hyman, Terrence Lowell.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 27th of April 2017 by Defendant to Dismiss Appeal:

"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 3rd of May 2017."
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4071 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4071

To amend the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 to provide for flood 
      insurance policies with higher deductibles and lower rates.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 21, 2014

  Mr. Schrader (for himself and Mr. Marino) introduced the following 
    bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 to provide for flood 
      insurance policies with higher deductibles and lower rates.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Flood Insurance Flexibility Act of 
2014''.

SEC. 2. OPTIONAL HIGH-DEDUCTIBLE POLICIES FOR CERTAIN PROPERTIES.

    Section 1306 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 
4013) is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(d) Optional High-Deductible Policies.--
            ``(1) Option.--The Administrator shall make flood insurance 
        coverage available for properties, at the option of the 
        insured, having premiums and deductibles in the amounts 
        provided under paragraph (2).
            ``(2) High-deductibles; risk premium rate.--Flood insurance 
        coverage made available pursuant to this subsection for a 
        property shall--
                    ``(A) have an annual loss-deductible for damage to 
                the covered property in an amount not less than $10,000 
                (as such amount is adjusted for inflation to the 
                nearest $1,000 by the Administrator, using such index 
                as the Administrator determines is appropriate), and 
                the Administrator may make coverage available having 
                such higher loss-deductible amounts as the 
                Administrator considers feasible and appropriate; and
                    ``(B) subject to any other provision of this Act, 
                have a chargeable risk premium rate that, as determined 
                by the Administrator, accurately reflects the current 
                risk of flood to such property and the deductible under 
                such coverage pursuant to subparagraph (A).''.
                                 <all>
```
Robert Allen SARTORI, Plaintiff, v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY; DPS Communications, Information Technology Services; George T. Solomon; Kieran J. Shanahan; American Telephone and Telgraph Co.; Global-Tel-Link Corp; and Evercom Systems Inc., Defendants.

No. COA15-84.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Sept. 1, 2015.

**CASE REPORTED WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINON**

Affirmed.
STATE of North Carolina v. Christopher Jason HUDSON

No. COA16-431

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: February 21, 2017

NO ERROR.
THE FIDELITY BANK v. N.C. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

392A16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 28, 2016

Donalt J. Eglinton, Attorney at Law, New Bern, Alexander C. Dale, Attorney at Law, Wilmington, Amy P. Wang, Attorney at Law, New Bern, for The Fidelity Bank.

Perry J. Pelaez, Assistant Attorney General, for N.C. Department of Revenue.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 27th of October 2016 by Petitioner to Hold Appeal in Abeyance Pending Determination of Petition for Discretionary Review in Companion Case:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 28th of October 2016."
a50898309ex10_1.htm



Exhibit 10.1





Written Description of Non-employee Director Compensation


 


Each non-employee Director is paid an annual retainer of $40,000 (except the Lead Director, who receives a $45,000 retainer), plus an annual grant of 1,000 shares of the Company’s stock.  The stock is granted under the Company’s 2007 Equity Incentive Plan.
Exhibit 31.1  Section 302 Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer  I, Paul Tidwell, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Innocap, Inc.  2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;  4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:  a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  b. Designed such internal control over financial reporting to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles; and  c. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report my conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  d. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting.  5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):  a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.    Date: June 16, 2014  /s/ Paul Tidwell Paul Tidwell Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         383,866
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   77,478
<ALLOWANCES>                                    41,504
<INVENTORY>                                      4,176
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               464,691
<PP&E>                                         529,003
<DEPRECIATION>                                 488,470
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 505,224
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          333,673
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        29,872
<OTHER-SE>                                     141,679
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   505,224
<SALES>                                        202,203
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,747,203
<CGS>                                          313,129
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,291,399
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             1,399,816
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,036
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,212,384)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,212,384)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,212,384)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.08)
        

</TABLE>
# C_2008051EN.01003601.xml

| 23.2.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/36

---

Action brought on 11 December 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland

(Case C-554/07)

(2008/C 51/59)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: R. Lyal and M. Afonso, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Ireland

Defendant:

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that by failing to transpose correctly into Irish legislation Article 13 of Directive 2006/112 (including Annex I to the directive) and consequently by excluding from the scope of the tax all economic activities in which the State, local authorities and other bodies governed by public law engage, with certain limited exceptions, Ireland has failed to comply with its obligations under Articles 2, 9 and 13 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1); |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that by failing to transpose correctly into Irish legislation Article 13 of Directive 2006/112 (including Annex I to the directive) and consequently by excluding from the scope of the tax all economic activities in which the State, local authorities and other bodies governed by public law engage, with certain limited exceptions, Ireland has failed to comply with its obligations under Articles 2, 9 and 13 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1);

1

| — | order Ireland to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order Ireland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In Ireland, the State and local authorities are treated as taxable persons only in so far as a specific order to that effect has been made by the Minister for Finance. In the Commission's view that situation is contrary to the scheme laid down in Article 13 of the VAT directive in several respects. First, no provision is made for the taxation of public bodies where they act other than in their capacity as public authorities. Secondly, no general provision is made for the taxation of public bodies where they act in their capacity as public authorities but engage in an economic activity whose non-taxation would result in a significant distortion of competition. The taxation of public bodies is wholly at the discretion of the Minister for Finance; no criteria for his decision are contained in the relevant provisions. Thirdly, no provision is made for taxation of the activities listed in Annex I to the VAT directive.

---

(1)  OJ L 347, p. 1.

1

---
State of North Carolina v. Thomas Craig Campbell

No. 252PA14-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 9, 2016.

Barbara S. Blackman, Assistant Appellate Defender, Hannah H. Love, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Campbell, Thomas Craig.

*801Teresa M. Postell, Assistant Attorney General, Mike Miller, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

*ORDER*

The State's Petition for Discretionary Review is allowed only as to whether the Court of Appeals erred in invoking Rule 2 of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure under the circumstances of this case. The State's Petition for Discretionary Review is otherwise denied.

By order of the Court in Conference, this *9th* day of *June*, 2016.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          19,315
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,184
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (506)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                34,526
<PP&E>                                          10,417
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (5,847)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  40,598
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           13,394
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            25
<OTHER-SE>                                      27,179
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    40,598
<SALES>                                          7,510
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                11,096
<CGS>                                              813
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,348
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                10,066
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,088)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (407)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (681)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (681)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
State of North Carolina v. Matthew Ryan Hoover

No. 351P16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 8, 2016

Bruce T. Cunningham, Jr., Attorney at Law, Southern Pines, for Matthew Ryan Hoover.

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

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Petitioner on the 22nd of September 2016 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Iredell County, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court of that County:

"Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th of December 2016."
STATE of North Carolina v. Antwan Terrell MURPHY

No. 506P08-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 16, 2017

Joseph L. Hyde, Assistant Attorney General, Kimberly S. Robb, District Attorney, for State of NC.

Antwan T. Murphy, for Murphy, Antwan Terrell.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 3rd of February 2017 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Pitt County, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court of that County:

"Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 16th of March 2017."

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 3rd of February 2017 by Defendant to Proceed In Forma Pauperis:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 16th of March 2017."

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 3rd of February 2017 by Defendant to Appoint Counsel:

"Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 16th of March 2017."