alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2010288EN.01003201.xml

| 23.10.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 288/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.10.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 288/32

---

Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2010 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission

(Case T-300/07) (1)

(Public service contracts - Community tendering procedure - Provision of information technology services relating to the management and maintenance of an internet portal - Rejection of the bid submitted by a tenderer - Award criteria - Obligation to state the reasons on which a decision is based - Manifest error of assessment - Equal treatment - Transparency)

(2010/C 288/60)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: E. Manhaeve, acting as Agent, and by J. Stuyk, lawyer)

Re:

APPLICATION (i) for annulment of the Commission’s decisions of 21 May 2007 and 13 July 2007 rejecting the tenders submitted by the applicant in tendering procedure ENTR/05/78 for Lot 1 (Editorial Work and Translation) and Lot 2 (Infrastructure Management) for the management and maintenance of the ‘Your Europe’ portal (OJ 2006/S 143-153057) and awarding those contracts to another tenderer and (ii) for damages

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the Commission’s decision of 13 July 2007 rejecting the tender submitted by Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE in tendering procedure ENTR/05/78 for Lot 2 (Infrastructure Management) for the management and maintenance of the ‘Your Europe’ portal and awarding that contract to another tenderer; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the Commission’s decision of 13 July 2007 rejecting the tender submitted by Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE in tendering procedure ENTR/05/78 for Lot 2 (Infrastructure Management) for the management and maintenance of the ‘Your Europe’ portal and awarding that contract to another tenderer;

| 2. | Dismisses the remainder of the claim for annulment; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the remainder of the claim for annulment;

| 3. | Dismisses the claim for damages; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Dismisses the claim for damages;

| 4. | Orders Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis to pay 50 % of its own costs and 50 % of the costs incurred by the European Commission, and the European Commission to pay 50 % of its own costs and 50 % of those incurred by Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis to pay 50 % of its own costs and 50 % of the costs incurred by the European Commission, and the European Commission to pay 50 % of its own costs and 50 % of those incurred by Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE.

---

(1)  OJ C 235, 6.10.2007.

---
# C_2011226EN.01002002.xml

| 30.7.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 226/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.7.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 226/20

---

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

(Case T-186/06) (1)

1

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Hydrogen peroxide and sodium perborate - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Duration of the infringement - Concepts of ‘agreement’ and ‘concerted practice’ - Access to the file - Fines - Leniency Notice - Equal treatment - Legitimate expectations - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based)

2011/C 226/38

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Solvay SA (Brussels, Belgium) (represented initially by O.W. Brouwer, D. Mes, lawyers, M. O’Regan and A. Villette, Solicitors, and subsequently by O.W. Brouwer, A. Stoffer, lawyer, M. O’Regan and A. Villette)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action 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) and for annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Article 1(m) 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 C.38.620 — Hydrogen peroxide and perborate) in so far as the European Commission found therein that Solvay SA had participated in the infringement during the period prior to May 1995; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Article 1(m) 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 C.38.620 — Hydrogen peroxide and perborate) in so far as the European Commission found therein that Solvay SA had participated in the infringement during the period prior to May 1995;

| 2. | Sets the amount of the fine imposed on Solvay in Article 2(h) of Decision C(2006) 1766 final at EUR 139,5 million; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Sets the amount of the fine imposed on Solvay in Article 2(h) of Decision C(2006) 1766 final at EUR 139,5 million;

| 3. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 4. | Orders Solvay to bear 80 % of its own costs and to pay 80 % of the Commission’s; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders Solvay to bear 80 % of its own costs and to pay 80 % of the Commission’s;

| 5. | Orders the Commission to bear 20 % of its own costs and to pay 20 % of Solvay’s. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Orders the Commission to bear 20 % of its own costs and to pay 20 % of Solvay’s.

---

(1)  OJ C 212, 2.9.2006.

1

---
1515.

#### Brantley *v.*The State.

Conviction of manslaughter, from Washington superior court— Judge Bawlings. October 17, 1908.

Argued December 8, 1908.

decided January 27, 1909.

*John B. Oooper,*for plaintiff in error.

*Alfred Herrington, solicitor-general, Hines & Jordan,*contra.

Powell, J.

1. The defendant, if not justifiable on the theory that he-' killed under the reasonable fear that a felony was about to be committed on him, was guilty of murder. No .phase of the testimony indicates voluntary manslaughter; hence the verdict convicting the defendant of' that offense is unauthorized.

2. While words, threats, menaces, and contemptuous gestures on the part, of the deceased may create such an apparent danger as to justify a homicide, they are not, unless they amount to an assault, effectual to mitigate it from murder into manslaughter. *Holland*v. *State,*3 *Ga. App.*466 (60 S. E. 205) ; *Cumming*v. *State,*99 *Ga.*662 (27 S. E. 177); *Johnson*v. *State,*105 *Ga.*665 (31 S. E. 399) ; *Clay*v. *State,*124 *Ga.*795 (53 S. E. 179). *Judgment reversed.*
exhibit10-d.htm




Exhibit 10-d


 


COMPENSATION OF DIRECTORS


 


The retainer for Board service for non-employee directors of ArvinMeritor is $75,000 per year. No additional retainer is paid for service as committee members.


 


The Chairman of the Audit Committee receives an additional retainer of $10,000 per year, and the Chairman of the Compensation Committee receives an additional retainer of $7,000 per year. The Chairmen of the Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee and the Environmental and Social Responsibility Committee each receive an additional retainer of $5,000 per year. The Presiding Director receives an additional retainer of $20,000 per year.


 


A director may elect to defer payment of all or part of the cash retainer fees to a later date, with interest on deferred amounts accruing quarterly at a rate equal to 120% of the Federal long-term rate set each month by the Secretary of the Treasury. Each director also has the option each year (provided sufficient shares are available under a plan covering director equity grants to accommodate this deferral option at the time of election) to defer all or any portion of the cash retainer by electing to receive restricted shares or restricted share units that could be forfeited if certain conditions are not satisfied. The restricted shares or restricted share units in lieu of the cash retainer are valued at the closing price of the Common Stock on the New York Stock Exchange – Composite Transactions reporting system on the date each retainer payment would otherwise be made in cash.


 


After each Annual Meeting of Shareowners, each non-employee director receives an equity grant. The grant in 2010 consisted of shares of common stock, restricted stock or restricted share units valued at $80,000 on the date of grant. A non-employee director who is elected to the Board during the fiscal year receives a pro rata portion of the annual grant.


 


Non-employee directors also receive fees for attendance at committee meetings. These attendance fees are in the amount of $1,500 for each meeting in person and $750 for each telephone meeting.


 


Directors who are also employees of ArvinMeritor or a subsidiary of ArvinMeritor do not receive compensation for serving as directors.
STATE v. Dwayne Demont HAIZLIP

345P16-4

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 30, 2017

James D. Concepcion, Assistant Attorney General, J. Douglas Henderson, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

Dwayne Dumont Haizlip, for Haizlip, Dwayne Dumont.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 1st of May 2017 by Defendant for Petition for Rehearing:

"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 30th of May 2017."

Ervin, J. recused
# CE2004088EN.01029701.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/297 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/297

---

(2004/C 88 E/0303)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3540/02

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(11 December 2002)

Subject:   Health inequalities

Subject:

I refer the Commission to the paper ‘A strategy for tackling health inequalities in the Netherlands’, by Professors Johan Ρ Mackenbach and Karien Stronks of the University of Amsterdam, published in the British Medical Journal, volume 325, 2 November 2002.

The study points to a number of innovations that have helped reduce socio-economic inequalities in health in that country but concludes that no single country has the capacity to contribute more than a fraction of the knowledge necessary to support and develop such strategies. It suggests that there is an important role for the European Union in promoting such collaboration.

What are the Commission's current commitments and future plans in this respect?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(27 January 2003)

(27 January 2003)

The Commission is well aware of the work conducted by Professor Mackenbach and his collaborators, on health inequalities. Some of this has been supported from the Community's health promotion programme.

The new Public Health Programme (2003-2008) highlights the importance of addressing the (wider) determinants of health. Areas such as low income/poverty unhealthy living conditions, working conditions, unemployment, as well as life-style factors are all important determinants of health. The unequal distribution of health and its determinants is associated with social class/socio-economic position.

The programme includes specific actions to tackle inequalities in health. It recognises that strategies to reduce health inequalities in the Community are required to provide co-ordinated actions across major policy areas.

Initially, it is planned to focus work on developing health inequality indicators, collecting information and best practice across Europe about policies and interventions and developing pilot networks to assure effective exchanges between countries on addressing health inequalities.

---
# C_2008223EN.01001401.xml

| 30.8.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 223/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 223/14

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 July 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main — Germany) — Emirates Airlines Direktion für Deutschland v Diether Schenkel

(Case C-173/07) (1)

1

(Carriage by air - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Compensation for passengers in the event of cancellation of a flight - Scope - Article 3(1)(a) - Concept of ‘flight’)

(2008/C 223/21)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Emirates Airlines Direktion für Deutschland

Applicant:

Defendant: Diether Schenkel

Defendant:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main –Interpretation of Article 3(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1) — Concept of ‘departure’ — Outward and return ticket from a Member State to a non-member country — Cancellation of the return flight

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, must be interpreted as not applying to the case of an outward and return journey in which passengers who have originally departed from an airport located in the territory of a Member State to which the EC Treaty applies travel back to that airport on a flight from an airport located in a non-member country. The fact that the outward and return flights are the subject of a single booking has no effect on the interpretation of that provision.

---

(1)  OJ C 155, 7.7.2007.

1

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6983

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

RAEL RASHARD PATTERSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District

Judge. (6:97-cr-00129-GRA-1)

Submitted: September 11, 2008 Decided: September 17, 2008

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

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rael Rashard Patterson, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Jean Howard,

Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Rael Rashard Patterson appeals the district court’s order

denying his motion to modify his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(2)(2000). We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s

order. See United States v. Patterson, No. 6:97-cr-00129-GRA-1

(D.S.C. June 3, 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
Exhibit 21.1



LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES OF
McLEODUSA INCORPORATED(As of March 17, 2003)

|Subsidiary                                  |  | State of
Incorporation or
Organization
|------------------------------------------- |  | --------------------------------------
|CapRock Communications Corp.                |  | Texas                                 
|CapRock Design Services, L.P.               |  | Arizona                               
|CapRock Fiber Network, Ltd.                 |  | Texas                                 
|CapRock Network Services, L.P.              |  | Texas                                 
|CapRock Telecommunications Corp.            |  | Texas                                 
|CapRock Telecommunications Leasing Corp.    |  | Texas                                 
|Devise Associates, Inc.                     |  | New York                              
|Intelispan, Inc.                            |  | Washington                            
|McLeodUSA Holdings, Inc.                    |  | Delaware                              
|McLeodUSA Information Services, Inc.        |  | Delaware                              
|McLeodUSA Market Response, Inc.             |  | Iowa                                  
|McLeodUSA Network Services, Inc.            |  | Iowa                                  
|McLeodUSA Purchasing, L.L.C.                |  | Iowa                                  
|McLeodUSA Telecommunications Services, Inc. |  | Iowa                                  
|Midwest Cellular Associates                 |  | Illinois                              

---

QuickLinks
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-20933 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus HECTOR AURELIO SANCHEZ-ZUNIGA, also known as Hector Sanchez, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-99-CR-183-1

-------------------- August 23, 2000 Before KING, Chief Judge, and POLITZ and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Hector Aurelio Sanchez-Zuniga (Sanchez) appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry into the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Sanchez challenges a sixteen-level increase to his base offense level pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2. Sanchez’s argument that mere possession of cocaine does not qualify as an “aggravated felony” for purposes of § 2L1.2 is foreclosed by our decision in United States v. Hinojosa-Lopez , 130 F.3d 691, 693-94 (5th Cir. 1997).No. 99-20933 -2-

In Hinojosa-Lopez , we determined that a prior conviction constitutes an aggravated felony for purposes of § 2L1.2 if “(1) the offense was punishable under the Controlled Substances Act and (2) it was a felony.” 130 F.3d at 694. Hinojosa-Lopez ’s rationale applies to the instant case. Possession of cocaine is punishable under the Controlled Substances Act, and such possession is a felony under Texas law. See 21 U.S.C. § 844(a);
T EX . H EALTH & S AFETY C ODE A NN . §§ 481.102(3)(D), 481.115 (West 2000). Sanchez acknowledges that his appellate arguments are at least partially foreclosed by Hinojosa-Lopez but argues that a determination that he committed a drug-trafficking offense when he “merely possessed cocaine violates common sense, the rule of lenity, and the due process requirement of notice and specificity.” “The rule of lenity . . . applies only when, after consulting traditional canons of statutory construction, [a court is] left with an ambiguous statute.” United States v. Shabani , 513 U.S. 10, 17 (1994) (emphasis added). The term “aggravated felony” was not so ambiguous as to require an application of the rule of lenity. See Hinojosa-Lopez , 130 F.3d at 693-94. Sanchez’s due process argument also is unconvincing. Sanchez is challenging a sentencing guideline, not a criminal statute. “Due process does not mandate . . . notice, advice, or a probable prediction of where, within the statutory range, the guideline sentence will fall.” United States v. Pearson , 910 F.2d 221, 223 (5th Cir. 1990).No. 99-20933 -3- This appeal borders on being frivolous. We caution counsel. Counsel has no duty to bring frivolous appeals; the opposite is
true. See United States v. Burleson , 22 F.3d 93, 95 (5th Cir. 1994). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4027 

To increase the statutory limit on the public debt and to require House 

and Senate votes on constitutional amendments to balance the Federal 

budget and to restrict new entitlement spending. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 10, 2014 

Mr. CRAWFORD introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Rules, 

for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case 

for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the 

committee concerned 

A BILL 

To increase the statutory limit on the public debt and to 

require House and Senate votes on constitutional amendments to balance the Federal budget and to restrict 

new entitlement spending. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PUBLIC DEBT LIMIT EXTENSION. 

4 Subsection (b) of section 3101 of title 31, United 

5 States Code, is amended by striking out the dollar limita6 tion contained in such subsection and inserting 

7 ‘‘$19,250,000,000,000’’. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4027 IH

1 SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL VOTES REQUIRED ON CONSTITU2 TIONAL AMENDMENTS TO BALANCE THE 

3 FEDERAL BUDGET AND TO RESTRICT NEW 

4 ENTITLEMENT SPENDING. 

5 Within 45 days after the date of enactment of this 

6 Act, the House of Representatives and the Senate shall 

7 each vote upon a proposed amendment to the Constitution 

8 of the United States entitled ‘‘Joint resolution proposing 

9 a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the 

10 United States’’ or entitled ‘‘Joint resolution proposing an 

11 amendment to the Constitution of the United States to 

12 restrict the power of Congress to enact legislation increas13 ing any amount spent under entitlement programs or cre14 ating new entitlement programs’’. If such vote fails to 

15 achieve a two-thirds majority in either House of Congress 

16 then there shall be a vote in that House of Congress on 

17 either such amendment within 90 days. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

               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 on Form 10-Q/A of Applix, Inc. (the
"Company") for the period ended June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 14, 2002, as amended on March 31, 2003 and the
date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, Walt Hilger, Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
that:

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

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

                                   /s/ Walt Hilger
                                   -----------------------
Dated: May 21, 2003                Walt Hilger
                                   Chief Financial Officer





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Applix, Inc. and will be retained by Applix, Inc. and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.