alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2009256EN.01002402.xml

| 24.10.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 256/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.10.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 256/24

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 3 September 2009 — Cheminova and Others v Commission

(Case T-326/07) (1)

1

(Plant-protection products - Active substance ‘malathion’ - Non-inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC - Action for annulment - Locus standi - Admissibility - Evaluation procedure - Assessment by EFSA - Plea of illegality - Article 20 of Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002 - Submission of new studies - Article 8(2) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 451/2000 - Legitimate expectation - Proportionality - Equal treatment - Principle of sound administration - Rights of the defence - Principle of subsidiarity - Article 95(3) EC, Articles 4(1) and 5(1) of Directive 91/414)

2009/C 256/44

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Cheminova A/S (Harboøre, Denmark); Cheminova Agro Italia Srl (Rome, Italy); Cheminova Bulgaria EOOD (Sofia, Bulgaria); Agrodan, SA, (Madrid Spain); and Lodi SAS (Grand-Fougeray, France) (represented by: C. Mereu and K. Van Maldegem, lawyers, and P. Sellar, Solicitor)

Applicants:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: B. Doherty and L. Parpala, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Annulment of Commission Decision 2007/389/EC of 6 June 2007 concerning the non-inclusion of malathion in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing that substance (OJ 2007 L 146, p. 19)

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action.

| 2. | Orders Cheminova A/S, Cheminova Agro Italia Srl, Cheminova Bulgaria EOOD, Agrodan, SA and Lodi SAS to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission, including those relating to the application for interim measures. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Cheminova A/S, Cheminova Agro Italia Srl, Cheminova Bulgaria EOOD, Agrodan, SA and Lodi SAS to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission, including those relating to the application for interim measures.

---

(1)  OJ C 247, 20.10.2007.

1

---
IN RE: Todd W. SHORT

46P16-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 21, 2016

Todd Short, for Short, Todd W.

Steven Kropelnicki, Jr., Attorney at Law, Asheville.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 22nd of September 2016 by Petitioner for Extension of Time to File Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of North Carolina:

"Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 21st of October 2016."
CHRISTINE STANDING, BSc (Hons), MAusIMM, MAIG



CONSENT OF QUALIFIED PERSON

To:

US Securities and Exchange Commission



I, Christine Standing, BSc (Hons), MAusIMM, MAIG, do hereby consent to (i) the the incorporation by reference of the following document(s) into the annual information form (the AIF) of Nevsun Resources Ltd. (the Issuer) dated March 24, 2005 to be filed with certain Canadian securities commissions and the annual report on Form 40-F (the 40-F) of the Issuer to be filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection therewith, and (ii) the inclusion of any extracts from or summary of such document(s) in the AIF and the 40-F:

1.

Technical Report on the Tabakoto Property, Mali West Africa, dated May 17, 2004

(collectively, the Technical Report).

I also certify that I have read the written disclosure being filed and I do not have any reason to believe that there are any misrepresentations in the information derived from the Technical Report or that the written disclosure in the AIF or the 40-F of the Issuer contains any misrepresentation of the information contained in the Technical Report.

Dated this 21st day of March, 2005

signed

_______________________
Christine Standing, BSc (Hons), MAusIMM, MAIG

[Seal or Stamp]
# C_2011038EN.01001001.xml

| 5.2.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.2.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/10

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2010 — Martin v Parliament

(Case T-276/07) (1)

1

(Rules concerning expenses and allowances for Members of the European Parliament - Recovery of sums wrongly paid)

2011/C 38/13

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Hans-Peter Martin (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: É. Boigelot, T. Bontinck and S. Woog, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament (represented: initially by H. Krück, D. Moore and C. Karamarcos, and subsequently by H. Krück, D. Moore and M. Windisch, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision of the Secretary General of the European Parliament of 10 May 2007 and, if necessary, the debit note of the Director-General for Finance of the Parliament, taken pursuant to the decision of 10 May 2007, and, where applicable, any decision implementing the aforementioned measures which might arise in the course of the proceedings.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the application; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the application;

| 2. | Orders Mr Hans-Peter Martin to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Hans-Peter Martin to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 211 of 8.9.2007.

1

---
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 22, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 136740 Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 136740 

 COA: 277215 

Macomb CC: 2006-001303-FC 

BENJAMIN HARRY WRIGHT, 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 29, 2008 

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

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

d0915 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

September 22, 2008 

 Clerk
**Exhibit
      32**
 
 **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 this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of National Patent
      Development Corporation (the “Company”) for the fiscal quarter ended June 30,
      2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof,
      (the “Report”), each of the undersigned officers of the Company hereby
      certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. (section) 1350, as adopted pursuant to
      (section) 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his
      knowledge:
 
 (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/
      HARVEY P.
      EISEN
 Name:    
      Harvey P. Eisen
 Title:       Chief
      Executive Officer
 Date:       August
      14, 2007
 
  /s/
      IRA J.
      SOBOTKO
 Name      Ira
      J. Sobotko
 Title:       Vice
      President, Finance
 Date:       August
      14, 2007
# C_2008064EN.01006501.xml

| 8.3.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 64/65 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.3.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 64/65

---

Action brought on 8 October 2007 — Tomas v Parliament

(Case F-116/07)

(2008/C 64/107)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Parties

Applicant: Stanislovas Tomas (Kerkrade, Netherlands) (represented by: M. Michalauskas, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the appointing authority to dismiss the applicant to the extent that it has not been annulled by the decision to reject the complaint, or annul the decision to reject the complaint to the extent that it has not annulled the dismissal decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the appointing authority to dismiss the applicant to the extent that it has not been annulled by the decision to reject the complaint, or annul the decision to reject the complaint to the extent that it has not annulled the dismissal decision;

| — | Order the defendant to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 125 000 as compensation for the non-material and material damage suffered by the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 125 000 as compensation for the non-material and material damage suffered by the applicant;

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

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant seeks annulment of the decision by which the appointing authority decided to dismiss him and compensation for the damage he suffered. In support of his action, he contends that there has been abuse of office by the appointing authority, infringement of several provisions of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities and infringement of Article 19 of the European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour, infringement of the principles applicable to the rights of the defence and to good administration and infringement of the Parliament's duty to have regard for the welfare of officials.

---
STATE of North Carolina v. Joshua SANCHEZ

No. 410PA16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 3, 2017

Rudolph A. Ashton, III, Attorney at Law, New Bern, for Sanchez, Joshua.

Ebony J. Pittman, Assistant Attorney General, N. Lorrin Freeman, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by State of NC on the 4th of November 2016 for Writ of Supersedeas of the judgment of the Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

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

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 22nd of November 2016 by State of NC 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:

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

Therefore the case is docketed as of the date of this order's certification. Briefs of the respective parties shall be submitted to this Court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 15(g)(2).
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


C\_2019279EN.01003801.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 19.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 279/38 |

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.9482 — SKT/Comcast/JV)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2019/C 279/05)

1.

On 7 August 2019, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [(1)](#ntr1-C_2019279EN.01003801-E0001).

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | SK Holdings Co., Ltd (‘SKT’, South Korea), |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Comcast Corp. (‘Comcast’, USA), |

SKT and Comcast acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of the whole of SK Telecom CS T1 Co., Ltd, a newly established joint venture (the ‘JV’, South Korea).

The concentration is accomplished by purchase of shares.

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

—   for SKT: media, security, commerce and telecommunications services, including operations of a mobile network in South Korea,

—   for Comcast: media, technology and entertainment services, including professional sports and live entertainment,

—   for the JV: operation of a professional team for online multiplayer video game competitions.

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.

Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [(2)](#ntr2-C_2019279EN.01003801-E0002) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.

4.

The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:

M.9482 — SKT/Comcast/JV

Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:

| |
| --- |
| Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu |
| Fax +32 22964301 |
| Postal address: |
| European Commission |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

---

[(1)](#ntc1-C_2019279EN.01003801-E0001)  [OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOL_2004_024_R_TOC) (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

[(2)](#ntc2-C_2019279EN.01003801-E0002)  [OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOC_2013_366_R_TOC).

---
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3739 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to equalize the exclusion 

from gross income of parking and transportation fringe benefits and 

to provide for a common cost-of-living adjustment, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 12, 2013 

Ms. EDWARDS 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 equalize 

the exclusion from gross income of parking and transportation fringe benefits and to provide for a common costof-living adjustment, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. UNIFORM DOLLAR LIMITATION FOR ALL TYPES 

4 OF TRANSPORTATION FRINGE BENEFITS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 132(f)(2) of the Internal 

6 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended— 

7 (1) by striking ‘‘$100’’ in subparagraph (A) 

8 and inserting ‘‘$245’’, 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3739 IH

1 (2) by striking ‘‘$175’’ in subparagraph (B) 

2 and inserting ‘‘$245’’, and 

3 (3) by striking the last sentence. 

4 (b) INFLATION ADJUSTMENT CONFORMING AMEND5 MENTS.—Subparagraph (A) of section 132(f)(6) of the In6 ternal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended— 

7 (1) by striking the last sentence, 

8 (2) by striking ‘‘1999’’ and inserting ‘‘2013’’, 

9 and 

10 (3) by striking ‘‘1998’’ and inserting ‘‘2012’’. 

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

12 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

13 December 31, 2013. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
IN RE: T.K.

175P17-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 5, 2017

Aaron Thomas Johnson, Assistant Appellate Defender, for T.K.

Gerald K. Robbins, Special Deputy Attorney General, Matthew Delbridge, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 5th of June 2017 by State of NC for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th of June 2017."
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM THE ANNUAL
REPORT ON FORM 10-KSB FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 1999 AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                            7,917
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                                0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                      0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                      0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                      17,097
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                                0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                  0
<LOANS>                                          56,066
<ALLOWANCE>                                         343
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   85,023
<DEPOSITS>                                       59,576
<SHORT-TERM>                                     16,606
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                 780
<LONG-TERM>                                           0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                10
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<COMMON>                                              0
<OTHER-SE>                                        8,050
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                   85,023
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                   4,597
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                 1,340
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    255
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                  6,192
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                2,637
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                3,642
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                             2,550
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       139
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                               (2,038)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                   2,116
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (1,238)
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       (1,238)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (772)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (0.90)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (0.90)
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                     7.70
<LOANS-NON>                                       1,160
<LOANS-PAST>                                          0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                      0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                     481
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                    348
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       168
<RECOVERIES>                                         24
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                   343
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                343
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                   0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              14


</TABLE>
State of North Carolina v. Bradley Davis Bagley, Defendant.

No. COA16-262

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: November 15, 2016

NO ERROR.
**Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) of 22 April 2009 – CESD‐Communautaire v Commission**

**(Case T-289/06)**

Public procurement – Declaration of a serious breach of contract – Article 93(1)(f) of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 – Action for annulment – Error of fact and law – Jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance – Legal interest in bringing proceedings – Admissibility – Misuse of powers – Manifest error of assessment – Statement of reasons – Rights of the defence

1.                     *Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Interest in bringing proceedings (Art. 230, fourth para., EC) (see paras
64-71)*

2.                     *Actions for annulment – Pleas in law – Misuse of powers – Definition (Art. 230 EC) (see para. 82)*

3.                     *Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope –* *Plea alleging lack of or insufficient statement of reasons – Plea alleging inaccurate statement of reasons – Distinction (Art.
253 EC) (see paras 106-107)*

**Re:**

APPLICATION for annulment of the Commission’s letter of 11 August 2006 by which it informed the applicant that it had taken
the decision to declare, as regards three contracts referred to in that letter, that there had been a serious breach of contract
under Article 93(1)(f) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable
to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 248, p. 1).

**Operative part**

The Court:

1.         Dismisses the action;

2.         Orders Centre européen pour la statistique et le développement ASBL (CESD-Communautaire) to pay the costs.

| |
| |
STATE of North Carolina v. Andrew Ross HOSTETLER

No. COA16-680

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: March 7, 2017

Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Assistant Attorney General Tracy Nayer, for the State.

Appellate Defender Glenn Gerding, by Assistant Appellate Defender Katherine Jane Allen, for defendant-appellant.

CALABRIA, Judge.

Andrew Ross Hostetler ("defendant") appeals from judgments entered upon his guilty plea to nine sexual offenses. Defendant asserts no issue cognizable within his limited right of appeal; therefore, we dismiss his appeal.

On 13 October 2015, defendant entered a guilty plea to: (1) three counts of sexual offense with a child by an adult offender; (2) two counts of rape of a child by an adult offender; (3) two counts of taking indecent liberties with a child; (4) one count of felonious incest; and (5) one count of first degree sexual offense. The trial court sentenced defendant to three consecutive terms of 300 to 369 months in the custody of the North Carolina Division of Adult Correction. Defendant appeals.

Defendant argues that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to enter judgment for incest as a Class B1 felony, because the indictment only alleged the elements of a Class F offense. The State, citing *State v. Absher* , 329 N.C. 264, 404 S.E.2d 848 (1991) (per curiam) and *State v. Jamerson* , 161 N.C. App. 527, 588 S.E.2d 545 (2003), argues that defendant has no appeal of right and moves this Court to dismiss his appeal. We agree with the State.

"In North Carolina, a defendant's right to appeal in a criminal proceeding is purely a creation of state statute." *Jamerson* , 161 N.C. App. at 528, 588 S.E.2d at 546 (citation omitted). A defendant who pleads guilty to a felony and is sentenced within the presumptive range has a statutory right to appeal (1) the denial of a motion to suppress, pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-979(b) (2015) ; and (2) the issues of whether the sentence imposed results from an incorrect prior record level finding, or contains an unauthorized disposition or term of imprisonment, pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1444(a2)(1)-(3).

Generally, the issue of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time. *See**State v. Wilson* , 128 N.C. App. 688, 691, 497 S.E.2d 416, 419, *disc. review improvidently allowed* , 349 N.C. 289, 507 S.E.2d 38-39 (1998). However, "[w]hile it is true that a defendant may challenge the jurisdiction of a trial court, such challenge may be made in the appellate division only if and when the case is properly pending before the appellate division." *Jamerson* , 161 N.C. App. at 529, 588 S.E.2d at 547 (alteration in original) (quoting *Absher* , 329 N.C. at 265 n.1, 404 S.E.2d at 849 n.1 ).

Here, although defendant challenges the trial court's jurisdiction, he has not raised an issue cognizable within his limited right to appeal from his guilty plea, pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 15A-979 and 15A-1444. Therefore, we dismiss defendant's appeal.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

Report per Rule 30(e).

Chief Judge McGEE and Judge DILLON concur.