alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 December 2008 – Commission v Italy**

**(Case C‐174/07)**

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Article 10 EC – Directive 2006/112/EC – Sixth VAT Directive – Obligations under domestic rules – Monitoring of taxable transactions – Amnesty

Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax – Obligations of persons liable for the tax (Art. 10 EC; Council Directives 77/388, Arts 2 and 22, and 2006/112, Arts 2(1)(a),
(c) and (d), and 193 to 273) (see paras 34-37, operative part)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Articles 2 and 22 of Directive 77/388/EEC: Sixth Council Directive of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1), replaced, as from 1 January 2007, by Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) – Obligations under domestic rules – National law which discontinues the monitoring of taxable transactions carried out during a series of tax periods. |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Declares that, by extending, by Article 2(44) of Law No 350 of 24 December 2003 relating to the provisions for drawing up the annual and pluriannual budget of the State (Finance Law for 2004) (legge n. 350, disposizioni per la formazione del bilancio annuale e pluriennale dello Stato (legge finanziaria 2004)), to 2002 the tax amnesty provided for in Articles 8 and 9 of Law No 289 of 27 December 2002 relating to the provisions for drawing up the annual and pluriannual budget of the State (Finance Law for 2003) (legge n. 289, disposizioni per la formazione del bilancio annuale e pluriennale dello Stato (legge finanziaria 2003)), and consequently providing generally and indiscriminately that the assessment of taxable transactions effected in the 2002 tax period is to be discontinued, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(1)(a), (c) and (d) and Articles 193 to 273 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, which as from 1 January 2007 replaced Articles 2 and 22 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, and under Article 10 EC; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs. |
In the Matter of: A.K., A.K.

No. COA16-368

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: November 1, 2016

AFFIRMED.
STATE v. Teon Jamell WILLIAMS.

No. 8P16-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 17, 2016.

Teon Jamell Williams, Tabor City, for Williams, Teon Jamell.

Joseph L. Hyde, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Sarah Kirkman, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 7th of January 2016 by Defendant to Proceed In Forma Pauperis:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 17th of March 2016."
# C_2011340EN.01001501.xml

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/15

---

Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2011 — Romana Tabacchi v Commission

(Case T-11/06) (1)

1

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Italian market for the purchase and first processing of raw tobacco - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Price-fixing and market-sharing - Participation in the infringement - Duration of the infringement - Fines - Attenuating circumstances - Maximum limit of 10 % of turnover - Equal treatment - Power of unlimited jurisdiction)

2011/C 340/27

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Romana Tabacchi Srl, formerly Romana Tabacchi SpA (Rome, Italy) (represented by: M. Siragusa and G.C. Rizza, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by É. Gippini Fournier and F. Amato, subsequently by É. Gippini Fournier and V. Di Bucci, and finally by É. Gippini Fournier and L. Malferrari, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

APPLICATION for partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2005) 4012 final of 20 October 2005 relating to a proceeding under Article 81(1) [EC] (Case COMP/C.38.281/B.2 — Raw tobacco — Italy) and, in the alternative, for a reduction in the fine imposed on the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Article 1(b) of Commission Decision C(2005) 4012 final of 20 October 2005 relating to a proceeding under Article 81(1) [EC] (Case COMP/C.38.281/B.2 — Raw tobacco — Italy) in so far as the European Commission found therein that Romana Tabacchi Srl had participated in the infringement beyond February 1999; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Article 1(b) of Commission Decision C(2005) 4012 final of 20 October 2005 relating to a proceeding under Article 81(1) [EC] (Case COMP/C.38.281/B.2 — Raw tobacco — Italy) in so far as the European Commission found therein that Romana Tabacchi Srl had participated in the infringement beyond February 1999;

| 2. | Sets the amount of the fine imposed on Romana Tabacchi at EUR 1 million; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Sets the amount of the fine imposed on Romana Tabacchi at EUR 1 million;

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

3.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 4. | Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Romana Tabacchi; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Romana Tabacchi;

| 5. | Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Romana Tabacchi in Case T-11/06 R. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Romana Tabacchi in Case T-11/06 R.

---

(1)  OJ C 60, 11.3.2006.

1

---
# C_2008183EN.01003103.xml

| 19.7.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 183/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.7.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 183/31

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 22 May 2008 — Daskalakis v Commission

(Case F-107/07) (1)

1

(Civil service - Officials - Remuneration - Article 7(2) of the Staff Regulations - Interim allowance - Inadmissible)

(2008/C 183/62)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Constantin Daskalakis (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S.A. Pappas, Advocate)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and B. Eggers, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Annulment of the decision to limit to one year the period during which the applicant, an official called upon to occupy, on a temporary basis, a post of head of unit, may benefit from the differential allowance provided for by Article 7(2) of the Staff Regulations.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | The parties shall bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The parties shall bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 315, 22.12.2007, p. 46.

1

---
Exhibit 10.1


 


AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO


 


THE COURIER CORPORATION
EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION PROGRAM


 


This Amendment No. 2 (this “Amendment”)
is effective as of the date of approval by the Compensation Committee of the
Board of Directors of Courier Corporation and amends that certain Courier
Corporation Executive Compensation Program (the “Program”), as amended and
restated on December 5, 2005.  Capitalized terms used herein and not
defined herein shall have the meanings set forth in the Program.  All
other provisions of the Program shall remain in full force and effect as
amended hereby.


 


The Program is hereby amended by
replacing the following sentence in Section 3 under “Important Information”:


 


“An individual must be an employee
of the Company or one of its participating Affiliates and a participant in the
Executive Compensation Program as of the date payment is made in order to be
eligible to receive the annual cash incentive award and any of the LTPI and
LTSI cash awards.”


 


with the following sentences:


 


“An individual must be an employee
of the Company or one of its participating Affiliates and a participant in the
Executive Compensation Program as of the last day of the fiscal year in order
to be eligible to receive the annual cash incentive award or LTSI cash award
earned for that fiscal year.  An
individual must be an employee of the Company or one of its participating
Affiliates and a participant in the Executive Compensation Program as of the
last day of the last fiscal year of the three-year performance cycle to be
eligible to receive the LTPI award.”


 


Approved and adopted by the
Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of Courier Corporation on September 17,
2010
**Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 10 April 2008 – Termoraggi v Comune di Monza**

**(Case C‐323/07)**

Public procurement – Public service and public supply contracts – Award without call for tenders – Award by a local authority to an undertaking whose capital it controls

1.                     *Approximation of laws – Procedures for the award of public supply contracts – Directives 92/50 and 93/36 – Scope (Council
Directives 92/50 and 93/36) (see paras 15-22, 26, operative part)*

2.                     *Approximation of laws – Procedures for the award of public service contracts – Directive 92/50 – Exception laid down by Article
6 of the directive – Condition (Council Directive 92/50, Art. 6) (see paras 24-26, operative part)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | Reference for a preliminary ruling – Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia – Interpretation of Article 6 of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1) – Scope – National provisions attributing, outside of the procedures for the award of public works contracts laid down in the directive, the management of heating installations of certain buildings in a commune to a municipal undertaking. |

**Operative part**

Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts
and Council Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating procedures for the award of public supply contracts do not apply
to a contract concluded between a local authority and a person legally distinct from it, where the local authority exercises
over the person concerned a control which is similar to that which it exercises over its own departments and, at the same
time, that person carries out the essential part of its activities with the controlling local authority or authorities.

Article 6 of Directive 92/50 is applicable only if there are laws, regulations or administrative provisions which have been
published and which grant the beneficiary an exclusive right concerning the subject‐matter of the contract awarded.
### UNITED STATES NAVY

- MARINE CORPS

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Before

F.D. MITCHELL, M.C. HOLIFIELD, K.J. BRUBAKER

.

Appellate Military Judges

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

MITCHELL R. SOPOCI

SONAR TECHNICIAN (SURFACE) SECOND CLASS ( E

- 5), U.S. NAVY

NMCCA 201400197

SPECIAL COURT

- MARTIAL

Sentence Adjudged: 14 March 2014

. Military Judge: CDR M.N. Fulton, JAGC, USN

. Convening Authority: Commanding Officer, USS O’KANE (DDG 77)

. Staff Judge Advocate's Recommendation: LT M.L. Gardner

, JAGC,

USN

. For Appellant: LCDR John T. Zelinka, JAGC, USN.

For Appellee: Mr. Brian K. Keller , Esq

.

2 8 August 2014

---------------------------------------------------

OPINION OF THE COURT

---------------------------------------------------

Af ter careful consideration of the record, submitted without

assignment of error, we affirm the findings and sentence as

approved by the convening authority. Art. 66(c), Uniform Code of

Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c).

For the Court

R.H. TROIDL

Clerk of Court
STATE of North Carolina v. William Spencer McCOWAN, Defendant.

No. COA15-948.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

May 3, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

No Plain Error in Part; No Error in Part.
Thomas A. E. Davis, Jr., Administrator of the Estate of Lisa Mary Davis (deceased) v. Hulsing Enterprises, LLC, Hulsing Hotels NC Management Company, Hulsing Hotels North Carolina, Inc., Hulsing Hotels, Inc., d/b/a Crowne Plaza Tennis & Golf Resort Asheville and Mulligan's

No. 160A16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 18, 2016.

*317Charles G. Monnett, III, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for Davis, Thomas A.E. (Jr.), et al.

Isaac N. Northup, Jr., Attorney at Law, Katherine M. Pomroy, Attorney at Law, Asheville, Katherine Marie Bulfer, Attorney at Law, for Hulsing Hotels North Carolina, Inc., et al.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition for discretionary review, filed by Defendants on the 5th of May 20 16 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 and the Appellate Rule 16(b) as to issues in addition to those presented as the basis for the dissenting opinion in the Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the petition for discretionary review as to additional issues is

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 18th of August 2016."

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).
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 17, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136329 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. FARM BUREAU GENERAL INSURANCE 

Stephen J. Markman, COMPANY OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 136329 

 COA: 280556 

Genesee CC: 07-085474-CK 

D&H MARKET, INC., MICHAEL L. KAMMO,

STEVEN L. KAMMO, and GARBIEL DUNSON,

Defendants-Appellees. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 19, 2008 order 

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

that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

p0910 

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 17, 2008 

 Clerk
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

FREDDIE CLARENCE MURRAY,

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 Appellee. 

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-06-00290-CR

Appeal from

 416th District Court

of Collin County, Texas

(TC #416-82521-05)

O P I N I O N

Freddie Clarence Murray, pro se, appeals his conviction of indecency with a child. A jury

found Appellant guilty and assessed his punishment at imprisonment for a term of twenty years. We

affirm. 

Appellant chose to represent himself at trial and on appeal after being fully admonished by

the trial court of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation. See Faretta v. California, 422

U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975); Collier v. State, 959 S.W.2d 621, 625

(Tex.Crim.App. 1997). Appellant has not filed a brief on his behalf in this appeal. On March 14,

2007, we ordered the trial court to conduct a hearing in accordance with TEX.R.APP.P. 38.8(b). The

trial court determined that Appellant wished to prosecute the appeal but he persisted in his desire to

proceed on appeal without the assistance of counsel. Despite being given extensions of time,

Appellant did not file a brief. We therefore submitted the case without the benefit of briefs.

TEX.R.APP.P. 38.8(b)(4). In the interest of justice, we have reviewed the entire record. See Lott v.

State, 874 S.W.2d 687, 688 (Tex.Crim.App. 1994). Having found no unassigned fundamental error,

we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
October 2, 2008 

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Justice

Before Chew, C.J., McClure, and Carr, JJ.

(Do Not Publish)
Riggsbee v. Jones, et al.

237P16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 18, 2016

Avery M. Riggsbee, For Riggsbee, Avery M.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 20th of June 2016 by Plaintiff to Proceed In Forma Pauperis:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 18th of August 2016."
State v. Anthony Leon Hoover

370P04-16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 26, 2017

Elizabeth N. Strickland, Assistant Attorney General, James R. O'Neill, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

Anthony Leon Hoover, for Hoover, Anthony Leon.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 3rd of November 2016 by Defendant for Mandamus Mandate Mandatory Injunction Appeal:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 26th of January 2017."

Hudson, J. recused
Linwood Wilson v. Barbara Wilson

No. 328P16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 8, 2016

Mr. Linwood E. Wilson, For Wilson, Linwood

Ms. Autumn D. Osbourne, Mr. Gray Ellis, Attorneys at Law, Durham, For Wilson, Barbara

**ORDER**

Ervin, J.

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Plaintiff on the 2nd of September 2016 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, 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 8th of December 2016."

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Plaintiff on the 6th of September 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:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th of December 2016."
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4032 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4032

To exempt from Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 certain water transfers by 
the North Texas Municipal Water District and the Greater Texoma Utility 
                   Authority, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 11, 2014

  Mr. Hall (for himself, Mr. Sessions, and Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
 Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, 
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 exempt from Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 certain water transfers by 
the North Texas Municipal Water District and the Greater Texoma Utility 
                   Authority, and for other purposes.

    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 ``North Texas Invasive Species Barrier 
Act of 2014''.

SEC. 2. COMPLIANCE WITH LACEY ACT AMENDMENT OF 1981.

    The Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 (16 U.S.C. 3371 et seq.) and 
section 42 of title 18, United States Code, shall not apply with 
respect to any water transfer by the North Texas Municipal Water 
District and the Greater Texoma Utility Authority using only closed 
conveyance systems from the Lake Texoma raw water intake structure to 
treatment facilities at which all genera and species prohibited in 
accordance with such Act or such section, respectively, are extirpated 
and removed from the water transferred.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-1114

CHARLES CAMMILLERI,

Petitioner,

v.

TECNICO CORPORATION; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

PROGRAMS; SIGNAL MUTUAL INDEMNITY ASSOCIATION, LIMITED,

Respondents.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board.

(07-0550)

Submitted: September 8, 2008 Decided: September 18, 2008

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

Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John H. Klein, Charlene A. Morring, MONTAGNA KLEIN CAMDEN L.L.P.,

Norfolk, Virginia, for Petitioner. R. John Barrett, Lisa L.

Thatch, VANDEVENTER & BLACK LLP, Norfolk, Virginia; Matthew W.

Boyle, Mark A. Reinhalter, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,

Washington, D.C., for Respondents.

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

PER CURIAM:

Charles Cammilleri seeks review of the Benefits Review

Board’s decision and order affirming the administrative law judge’s

denial of longshore disability benefits pursuant to 33 U.S.C.

§§ 901-950 (2000). Our review of the record discloses that the

Board’s decision is based upon substantial evidence and is without

reversible error. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for

the reasons stated by the Board. Cammilleri v. Tecnico Corp., No.

07-0550 (B.R.B. Dec. 13, 2007). 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.

PETITION DENIED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

________________ _________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. IGNACIO HERNANDEZ-MENDEZ, Defendant - Appellant. No. 19-3247 (D.C. No. 2:18-CR -20055-DDC-1) (D. Kan.)

________________ _________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

________________ _________________ Before MATHESON , BACHARACH , and PHILLIPS , Circuit Judges.

________________ _________________ This matter is before us on the United States’ Motion for Summary Disposition/Affirmance . The United States moves for summ ary affirmance based on this court’s recent published decision in United States v. Lira-Ramirez , 951 F.3d 1258 (10th Cir. 2020), en banc rev. denied May 1, 2020. While A ppellant does not dispute that LiraRamirez controls the outcome of this a ppeal and does not contest summary affirmance of the district court’s judgment, he reserves the right to petition the United States Supreme
Court for further review.

* Upon consideration of the United States’ motion and Appellant’s May 7, 2020 status report, this pane l unanimously agrees that th is matter can be submitted on these materials and without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case , res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consis tent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### May 26, 2020 Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court2 In light of the foregoing, the motion fo r summary affirmance is granted. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

Entered for the Court

Per Curiam