alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Nies v. Town of Emerald Isle

409PA15-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

July 28, 2016

*8J. David Breemer, Attorney at Law, Keith P. Anthony, Attorney at Law, Durham, for Nies, Gregory P., et al.

Brian E. Edes, Attorney at Law, Wilmington, Norwood P. Blanchard, III, Attorney at Law, J. Allen Jernigan, Attorney at Law, for Town of Emerald Isle.

Elliot Engstrom, Attorney at Law, for Civitas Institute Center for Law and Freedom.

Robert H. Thomas, Attorney at Law, Pro Hac Vice, Jason T. Campbell, Attorney at Law, Durham, for Owners' Counsel of America, et al.

James Patrick Longest, Jr., Attorney at Law, for Surfrider Foundation.

Geoffrey R. Gisler, Attorney at Law, Derb S. Carter, Jr., Attorney at Law, Chapel Hill, for Southern Environmental Law Center.

Mary Louise Lucasse, Special Deputy Attorney General, for N.C. Coastal Resources Commission.

Todd S. Roessler, Attorney at Law, Phillip A. Harris, Jr., Attorney at Law, Joseph S. Dowdy, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, Joseph J. Kalo, Attorney at Law, Amy Y. Bason, General Counsel, Walter Derrickson Taylor, Attorney at Law, Neil B. Whitford, Attorney at Law, Morehead City, Garris Neil Yarborough, Attorney at Law, Fayetteville, Charles S. Lanier, Attorney at Law, Jacksonville, Carl W. Thurman, III, Attorney at Law, Stephen D. Coggins, Attorney at Law, Wilmington, Wanda M. Copley, County Attorney, John C. Wessell, III, Attorney at Law, Charlotte Noel Fox, Attorney at Law, A. A. Canoutas, Attorney at Law, Wilmington, Robert V. Shaver, Jr., Attorney at Law, Charles S. Baldwin, IV, Attorney at Law, Justin K. Humphries, Attorney at Law, Wilmington, Michael R. Isenberg, Attorney at Law, Southport, G. Grady Richardson, Jr., Attorney at Law, for Graham Kenan Professor of Law Emeritus Joseph Kalo, et al.

John F. Maddrey, Solicitor General, Elizabeth A. Fisher, Assistant Solicitor General, Marc Bernstein, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of North Carolina Ex Rel. Attorney General Roy Cooper.

J. Mitchell Armbruster, Attorney at Law, B. Davis Horne, Jr., Attorney at Law, Eva G. Frongello, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for N.C. Travel and Tourism Coalition, et al.

Sam Hayes, Attorney at Law, David B. Efird, Deputy General Counsel, Beth A. Onyenwoke, Attorney at Law, Kevin V. Howell, Attorney at Law, for Department of Environmental Quality, et al.

Benjamin Marshall Gallop, Attorney at Law, John D. Leidy, Attorney at Law, Elizabeth City, Robert B. Hobbs, Jr., Attorney at Law, Nags Head, Donald I. McRee, Jr., Currituck County Attorney, Ronald G. Baker, Attorney at Law, Casey C. Varnell, Attorney at Law, For County of Dare, et al.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 27th of July 2016 by Southern Environmental Law Center for leave to file Amicus Curiae Brief:

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

Unless already submitted, the Amicus Brief shall be submitted to the court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 28(i).
# C_2006326EN.01006302.xml

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/63 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/63

---

Action brought on 13 November 2006 — Buffalo Milke Automotive Polishing Products v OHIM — Werner & Mertz (Buffalo Milke Automotive Polishing Products)

(Case T-308/06)

(2006/C 326/135)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Buffalo Milke Automotive Polishing Products, Inc. (Pleasanton, USA) (represented by: F. de Visscher, E. Cornu and D. Moreau, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Werner & Mertz GmbH (Mainz, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation of the Internal Market of 8 September 2006 in case R 1094/2005-2; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation of the Internal Market of 8 September 2006 in case R 1094/2005-2;

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

—

order the Office to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

Applicant for the Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘BUFFALO MILKE Automotive Polishing Products’ for goods and services in classes 3, 18 and 25 — application No 2 099 018

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Werner & Mertz GmbH

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited: The national figurative mark ‘BÚFALO’ for goods in class 3

Mark or sign cited:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the Opposition Division's decision

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 43 of Council Regulation No 40/94 and Rule 22 of Commission Regulation No 2868/95 as the Board of Appeal should not have taken into consideration the proof of use filed for the first time before it and outside the time limit set forth by the Opposition Division.

Pleas in law:

---
State of North Carolina v. Bobby Younts

No. COA16-523

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: December 20, 2016

REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-6796

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

GILBERT F. HEPBURN, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, 

District Judge. (1:99-cr-00258-LMB-1) 

Submitted: October 14, 2008 Decided: October 17, 2008 

Before KING, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Gilbert F. Hepburn, Appellant Pro Se. James L. Trump, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Gilbert F. Hepburn appeals the district court’s order 

denying his motion for relief pursuant to 18 U.S.C.A. § 3582(c) 

(West 2000 & Supp. 2008). We have reviewed the record and find 

no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons 

stated by the district court. United States v. Hepburn, No. 

1:99-cr-00258-LMB-1 (E.D. Va. Apr. 24, 2008). 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. 

AFFIRMED
STATE of North Carolina v. Charles Francis GRAHAM

No. 254P04-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 3, 2017

Charles Francis Graham, for Graham, Charles Francis.

Daniel P. O'Brien, Special Deputy Attorney General, R. Andrew Murray, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 23rd of March 2017 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Mecklenburg 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 3rd of May 2017."

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 23rd of March 2017 by Defendant to Proceed In Forma Pauperis:

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

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 23rd of March 2017 by Defendant to Appoint Counsel:

"Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 3rd of May 2017."
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN THE INTEREST OF K.V., AND

M.J.V., MINOR CHILDREN

§

§

§

§

§

 § 

No. 08-08-00216-CV

Appeal from the

383rd Judicial District Court

of El Paso County, Texas 

(TC# 2008AG302) 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This appeal is before the Court on its own motion for determination whether the appeal

should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Finding that a final judgment has not been entered

in the trial court, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Appellant filed a notice of appeal on June 11, 2008. Upon further review, it appears

Appellant is attempting to appeal from an agreed order entered in by an associate judge in

El Paso County’s Title IV-D Court. On June 11, 2008, the clerk of this Court notified Appellant

of the Court’s intent to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction unless a party, within ten days

of the date of the notice, could show grounds for continuing the appeal. We have not received a

response.

Appellate courts generally have jurisdiction over final judgments, and such interlocutory

orders as the Legislature deems appealable. See TEX.CIV.PRAC.&REM.CODE ANN. §§ 51.012,

51.014 (Vernon 2008); Ruiz v. Ruiz, 946 S.W.2d 123, 124 (Tex.App.--El Paso 1997, no pet.). 

Given the absence of a final judgment or other appealable order, we dismiss this appeal for lack
-2-

of jurisdiction.

September 25, 2008

DAVID WELLINGTON CHEW, Chief Justice

Before Chew, C.J., McClure, and Carr, JJ.
# C_2009006EN.01002902.xml

| 10.1.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.1.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/29

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 13 November 2008 — Lemaître Sécurité v Commission

(Case T-301/06) (1)

1

(Action for annulment - Dumping - Imports of footwear with a protective toecap originating in the People's Republic of China and India - Commission Decision closing the anti-dumping proceeding - Not individually concerned - Manifest inadmissibility)

(2009/C 6/60)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Lemaître Sécurité SAS (La Walck, France) (represented by: D. Bollecker, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. van Vliet and C. Giolito, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the applicant: Associazione nazionale calzaturifici italiani (Milan, Italy) (represented by: D. Bollecker, lawyer)

Intervener in support of the applicant:

Re:

Annulment of Commission Decision No 2006/582/EC of 28 August 2006 terminating the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of footwear with a protective toecap, originating in the People's Republic of China and India (OJ 2006 L 234, p. 33)

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

| 2. | Lemaître Sécurité SAS shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Lemaître Sécurité SAS shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Commission.

| 3. | Associazione nazionale calzaturifici italiani shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Associazione nazionale calzaturifici italiani shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.

1

---
Exhibit
23.1





CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form
S-8 No.’s 333-26743, 333-61467, 333-74490, 333-118861 and 333-153447 and Form
S-3 No.’s 333-74065, 333-39013 and 333-36337) of Cenveo, Inc. of our report
dated February 28, 2007, with respect to the consolidated financial statements
and schedule of Cenveo, Inc., included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the
year ended January 3, 2009.





/s/ ERNST & YOUNG
LLP








Stamford,
Connecticut


March 18,
2009
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4118 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to delay the implementation 

of the penalty for failure to comply with the individual health insurance 

mandate. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 28, 2014 

Ms. JENKINS (for herself, Mr. BRADY of Texas, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. BURGESS, 

Mr. NUGENT, Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN, Mr. WEBSTER of Florida, Mr. 

WOODALL, and Mr. COLE) 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 delay the 

implementation of the penalty for failure to comply with 

the individual health insurance mandate. 

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 ‘‘Suspending the Indi5 vidual Mandate Penalty Law Equals Fairness Act’’ or as 

6 the ‘‘SIMPLE Fairness Act’’. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4118 IH

1 SEC. 2. DELAY IN IMPLEMENTATION OF PENALTY FOR 

2 FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH INDIVIDUAL 

3 HEALTH INSURANCE MANDATE. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 5000A(c) of the Internal 

5 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end 

6 the following new paragraph: 

7 ‘‘(5) DELAY IN IMPLEMENTATION OF PEN8 ALTY.—Notwithstanding any other provision of this 

9 subsection, the monthly penalty amount with respect 

10 to any taxpayer for any month beginning before 

11 January 1, 2015, shall be zero.’’. 

12 (b) DELAY OF CERTAIN PHASE INS AND INDEX13 ING.— 

14 (1) PHASE IN OF PERCENTAGE OF INCOME LIM15 ITATION.—Section 5000A(c)(2)(B) of such Code is 

16 amended— 

17 (A) by striking ‘‘2014’’ in clause (i) and 

18 inserting ‘‘2015’’, and 

19 (B) by striking ‘‘2015’’ in clauses (ii) and 

20 (iii) and inserting ‘‘2016’’. 

21 (2) PHASE IN OF APPLICABLE DOLLAR

22 AMOUNT.—Section 5000A(c)(3)(B) of such Code is 

23 amended— 

24 (A) by striking ‘‘2014’’ and inserting 

25 ‘‘2015’’, and 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4118 IH

1 (B) by striking ‘‘2015’’ (before amendment 

2 by subparagraph (A)) and inserting ‘‘2016’’. 

3 (3) INDEXING OF APPLICABLE DOLLAR

4 AMOUNT.—Section 5000A(c)(3)(D) of such Code is 

5 amended— 

6 (A) by striking ‘‘2016’’ in the matter pre7 ceding clause (i) and inserting ‘‘2017’’, and 

8 (B) by striking ‘‘2015’’ in clause (ii) and 

9 inserting ‘‘2016’’. 

10 (4) INDEXING OF EXEMPTION BASED ON

11 HOUSEHOLD INCOME.—Section 5000A(e)(1)(D) of 

12 such Code is amended— 

13 (A) by striking ‘‘2014’’ (before amendment 

14 by subparagraph (B)) and inserting ‘‘2015’’, 

15 and 

16 (B) by striking ‘‘2013’’ and inserting 

17 ‘‘2014’’. 

18 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

19 this section shall apply to months beginning after Decem20 ber 31, 2013. 

Æ 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
# C_2011340EN.01003902.xml

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/39

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 27 September 2011 — Brown and Volpato v Commission

(Case F-75/07) (1)

1

(Staff Cases - Officials - Promotion - 2006 promotion year - New career structures - Extension of careers by the introduction of new grades having no equivalent in the old Staff Regulations - Application of Article 45 and Annex XIII of the Staff Regulations, as well as the general implementing provisions applicable from 2005 - Principle of equal treatment - Retroactive effect of promotion decisions to a date prior to 1 May 2004 - Transitional measures - Action which must manifestly be dismissed)

2011/C 340/80

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Colin Brown (Brussels, Belgium) and Alberto Volpato (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: B. Cortese and C. Cortese, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and G. Berscheid, Agents)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented initially by M. Arpio Santacruz and I. Šulce, later by: M. Bauer, J. Monteiro and K. Zieleśkiewicz, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

Annulment of the Commission decision published in Administrative Notices No 55 2006 of 17 November 2006 inasmuch as it provided for the promotion of the applicants to grade A*9, and not to grade A*10, in the 2006 promotion year.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Mr Brown and Mr Volpato, and the European Commission, are ordered to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Brown and Mr Volpato, and the European Commission, are ordered to bear their own costs.

| 3. | The Council of the European Union, which intervened, is ordered to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Council of the European Union, which intervened, is ordered to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 235 of 6.10.07, p. 30.

1

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

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000920354 
<NAME> PROJECT SOFTWARE & DEVELOPMENT, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          28,454
<SECURITIES>                                    38,922
<RECEIVABLES>                                   33,272
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,614
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               103,658
<PP&E>                                          18,874
<DEPRECIATION>                                  10,051
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 114,520
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           30,990
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           100
<OTHER-SE>                                      82,524
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   114,520
<SALES>                                         54,007
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               120,016
<CGS>                                            4,537
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   37,473
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                69,641
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   832
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 389
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 14,504
<INCOME-TAX>                                     8,282
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             12,902
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,222
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .63
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .62
        

</TABLE>
In the MATTER OF: D.P. and B.P.

No. 460P16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 3, 2017

Michael E. Casterline, Attorney at Law, Asheville, for Atkins, Holly.

Mercedes O. Chut, Attorney at Law, Greensboro, for Guilford County DHHS.

Matthew D. Wunsche, GAL Appellate Counsel, Matthew Wunsche, Attorney at Law, Durham, for GAL.

Nicholas Ackerman, Attorney Advocate, for Palmer, Brandon.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 20th of December 2016 by Respondent (Mother) 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 3rd of May 2017."
State of North Carolina v. Antorio Maurice Smarr

No. 579P01-3

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 18, 2016

Kristin Jo Uicker, Assistant Attorney General, Locke Bell, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

Antorio Rice Smarr, for Smarr, Antorio Maurice.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 18th of May 2016 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Gaston 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 18th of August 2016."
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITOR



We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (file nos. 33-82976 and 33-95138) and in the Registration
Statement on Form S-3 (file no. 333-05379) of our report, dated February 21,
1997, except for Note 2 as to which the date is March 13, 1997, with respect to
the financial statements appearing on page F-2 of this Annual Report on 
Form 10-K.



                                                     McGLADREY & PULLEN, LLP


Minneapolis, Minnesota
March 14, 1997
# C_2008272EN.01001802.xml

| 25.10.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 272/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.10.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 272/18

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 9 September 2008 — MyTravel v Commission

(Case T-403/05) (1)

1

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Refusal to grant access - Exception relating to the protection of the decision-making process - Exception relating to the protection of investigations and audits - Exception relating to the protection of legal advice - Documents relating to decisions of the Commission in the area of concentrations)

(2008/C 272/33)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: MyTravel Group plc (Rochdale, Lancashire, United Kingdom) (represented by: D. Pannick, QC, A. Lewis, Barrister, M. Nicholson, S. Cardell and B. McKenna, Solicitors)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. Hellström and P. Costa de Oliveira, and subsequently by X. Lewis and P. Costa de Oliveira, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

ACTION for the annulment of the Commission's decisions of 5 September 2005 (D(2005) 8461) and 12 October 2005 (D(2005) 9763), refusing to grant the applicant access to certain preparatory documents for the Commission Decision 2000/276/EC of 22 September 1999 declaring a concentration to be incompatible with the common market and the EEA Agreement (Case No IV/M. 1524 Airtours/First Choice), and to documents drafted by the Commission services in consequence of the annulment of that decision by judgment of the Court of First Instance of 6 June 2002 in Case T-342/99 [2002] ECR II-2585.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Commission of 5 September 2005 (D(2005) 8461) in so far as it refuses access to a working document entitled ‘Minutes from the conversation of a member of the case team in Case M.1524 Airtours/First Choice on the Airtours case conducted on 24 June 2002’; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Commission of 5 September 2005 (D(2005) 8461) in so far as it refuses access to a working document entitled ‘Minutes from the conversation of a member of the case team in Case M.1524 Airtours/First Choice on the Airtours case conducted on 24 June 2002’;

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders MyTravel Group plc to bear nine-tenths of its own costs and nine-tenths of the costs incurred by the Commission; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders MyTravel Group plc to bear nine-tenths of its own costs and nine-tenths of the costs incurred by the Commission;

| 4. | Orders the Commission to bear one-tenth of its own costs and one-tenth of the costs incurred by MyTravel Group. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the Commission to bear one-tenth of its own costs and one-tenth of the costs incurred by MyTravel Group.

---

(1)  OJ C 10, 14.1.2006.

1

---