alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2009167EN.01001002.xml

| 18.7.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 167/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.7.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 167/10

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 14 May 2009 — US Steel Košice v Commission

(Case T-22/07) (1)

1

(Action for annulment - State aid - Act of Accession - Condition imposed on the beneficiary to limit its sales of flat products in the ‘enlarged EU’ - Commission letter interpreting the condition as applying to the Bulgarian and Romanian markets from the date of their accession - Act not amenable to review - Inadmissibility)

2009/C 167/21

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: US Steel Košice s.r.o. (Košice, Slovakia) (represented by: E. Vermulst and S. Van Cutsem, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: K. Gross and T. Scharf, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the applicant: Slovak Republic (represented by: J. Čorba, Agent)

Intervener in support of the applicant:

Re:

Re:

Action for annulment of the decision allegedly contained in the Commission’s letter of 22 November 2006, inasmuch as it interprets the condition imposed on the applicant to limit its sales of flat products in the ‘enlarged EU’ as applying also, from 1 January 2007, to the Bulgarian and Romanian markets.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | US Steel Košice s.r.o. shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

US Steel Košice s.r.o. shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Commission.

| 3. | The Slovak Republic shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Slovak Republic shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 56, 10.3.2007.

1

---
STATE of North Carolina, v. Jose GOMEZ, Defendant, and Terrence C. Rushing, Bail Agent, and Agent Associates Insurance, L.L.C., Surety.

No. COA16-1327

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: October 3, 2017

VACATED. REMANDED.
State of North Carolina v. Robert William Ashworth

No. 308P16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 8, 2016.

Mr. James Rainsford, Cyrus Quinn Griswold, Attorneys at Law, For Ashworth, Robert William.

Ms. Kathryn E. Hathcock, Assistant Attorney General, Mr. James R. Woodall, Jr., District Attorney, For State of North Car.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the conditional petition filed on the 1st of September 2016 by Defendant 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:

"Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th of December 2016."
Exhibit 32.1  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 of Innocap, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended July 31, 2015 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Paul Tidwell, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:  1. The Report fully complies with 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 result of operations of the Company.  Date: September 14, 2015  /s/ Paul Tidwell Paul Tidwell Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
# Official Journal L 145/2015

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 145 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 5810 June 2015 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 145

English edition

Legislation

Volume 5810 June 2015

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/868 of 26 May 2015 amending Annexes II, III and V to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels for 2,4,5-T, barban, binapacryl, bromophos-ethyl, camphechlor (toxaphene), chlorbufam, chloroxuron, chlozolinate, DNOC, di-allate, dinoseb, dinoterb, dioxathion, ethylene oxide, fentin acetate, fentin hydroxide, flucycloxuron, flucythrinate, formothion, mecarbam, methacrifos, monolinuron, phenothrin, propham, pyrazophos, quinalphos, resmethrin, tecnazene and vinclozolin in or on certain products (
  1
  ) | 1 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/868 of 26 May 2015 amending Annexes II, III and V to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels for 2,4,5-T, barban, binapacryl, bromophos-ethyl, camphechlor (toxaphene), chlorbufam, chloroxuron, chlozolinate, DNOC, di-allate, dinoseb, dinoterb, dioxathion, ethylene oxide, fentin acetate, fentin hydroxide, flucycloxuron, flucythrinate, formothion, mecarbam, methacrifos, monolinuron, phenothrin, propham, pyrazophos, quinalphos, resmethrin, tecnazene and vinclozolin in or on certain products (
  1
  )

1

1

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
STATE v. Robert A.D. WALDRUP

189P17-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 17, 2017

Robert A.D. Waldrup, for Waldrup, Robert A.D.

Tracy Nayer, Assistant Attorney General.

Mike Miller, District Attorney, for the State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 12th of June 2017 by Defendant for Notice of Appeal:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 17th of August 2017."
# C_2008079EN.01002404.xml

| 29.3.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 79/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.3.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 79/24

---

Order of the President of the Court of 23 January 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic

(Case C-435/07) (1)

1

(2008/C 79/47)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Language of the case: Portuguese

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 269, 10.11.2007.

1

---
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Small Business Administration

# AGENCY:

U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA).

      ( print page 56963)    

# ACTION:

Notice of Pilot Program extension.

# SUMMARY:

This notice announces the extension of SBA's Export Express Pilot Program until November 30, 2005. This extension will allow time for SBA to complete its decision making regarding potential modifications and enhancements to the Program.

# DATES:

The Export Express Pilot Program is extended under this notice until November 30, 2005.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Charles Thomas, Office of Financial Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street, Washington, DC 20416; Telephone (202) 205-6490;                         *charles.thomas@sba.gov.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Export Express Pilot Program was established as a subprogram of the Agency's SBAExpress Pilot Program. It was established in 1998 to assist current and prospective small exporters, particularly those needing revolving lines of credit. Export Express generally conforms to the streamlined procedures of SBAExpress and carriers SBA's full 75-85 percent guaranty. The maximum loan amount under this Program is limited to $250,000. The extension of this Program until November 30, 2005, will allow the SBA to more fully evaluate the results and impact of the Program and to consider possible changes and enhancements to the Program. It will also allow SBA to further consult with its lending partners and the small business community about the Program. 

(Authority: 13 CFR 120.3)

Michael W. Hager,

Associate Deputy Administrator.

[FR Doc. 05-19441 Filed 9-28-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8025-01-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                            9
<MULTIPLIER>                                      1000

<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                              24,850
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               3,421
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                         0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                         0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                         29,958
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                             148,518
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                               145,805
<LOANS>                                            307,790
<ALLOWANCE>                                          1,566
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     528,910
<DEPOSITS>                                         341,872
<SHORT-TERM>                                         5,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                  8,557
<LONG-TERM>                                         98,359
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                               529
<OTHER-SE>                                          74,583
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                     528,910
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                     10,902
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                    6,594
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                       577
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                    18,073
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                   6,397
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   9,320
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                                8,753
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                           90
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                     223
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                      5,403
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      4,254
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                           4,254
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                         2,496
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          .59
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          .59
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                        3.42
<LOANS-NON>                                             36
<LOANS-PAST>                                         1,805
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                         0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                          0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                     1,484
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                            8
<RECOVERIES>                                             0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                    1,566
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 1,566
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              1,566



</TABLE>
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Merit Systems Protection Board

# AGENCY:

Merit Systems Protection Board. 

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

Notice is hereby given of the members of the Performance Review Board. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Janice Bradley, HR Director, Finance and Administrative Management, Merit Systems Protection Board, 1615 M Street, NW., Washington, DC 20419. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Merit Systems Protection Board is publishing the names of the new and current members of the Performance Review Board (PRB) as required by 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4). Deborah Miron, William Boulden and Martha Schneider will serve as members. Martha Schneider will serve as Chair of the PRB. Gail T. Lovelace will serve as a new member. 

Bentley M. Roberts, Jr.,

Clerk of the Board. 

[FR Doc. 05-19104 Filed 9-23-05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7400-01-P
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 20

- 00419

- CR
Domingo Trevino III v. The State of Texas
On Appeal from the 36th District Court of San Patricio County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. S

- 19

- 3089CR

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having consid ered this cause on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed

. The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED

. We further order this decision certified below for observance. July 8 , 2021
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 13

- 00333

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF E .D. , E.D, I.D., and J.D., Children

From the County Court at Law, Kerr County, Texas

Trial Court No. 111069C

Honorable Spencer W. Brown, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE MARION

, JUSTICE BARNARD , AND JUSTICE CHAPA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, that portion of the trial court ’ s order

terminating appellant ’ s parental rights is REVERSED and judgment is RENDERED that the

Department of Fa mily and Protective Services ’ peti tion requesting termination of appellant’s

parental rights to his four children is denied.

SIGNED November 22, 2013.

_____________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice
_________________________________________ 

 

 

______________________________________ 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

October 17, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

Justices 

133887(53) 

BUDGET RENT-A-CAR SYSTEM, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 SC: 133887 

v COA: 271703 

Wayne CC: 05-501303-NI

CITY OF DETROIT and DETROIT POLICE 

DEPARTMENT,

Defendants-Appellants. 

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion by plaintiff-appellee for extension 

to October 13, 2008 of the time for filing its brief on appeal is considered and it is 

GRANTED. 

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. 

October 17, 2008 

 Clerk
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1


                    Independent Auditors' Report and Consent


The Board of Director and Shareholders
Ancor Communications, Incorporated (Ancor):

The audits referred to in our report dated January 28, 2000, included the
related financial statement schedule as of December 31, 1999, and for each of
the years in the two-year period ended December 31, 1999, included in item
14(a). This financial statement schedule is the responsibility of the Company's
management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on this financial
statement schedule based on our audits. In our opinion, such a financial
statement schedule, when considered in relation to the basic financial
statements taken as a whole, presents fairly in all material respects the
information set forth therein.

We consent to incorporation by reference in registration statement No.'s
333-95197, 333-93791, 333-70539, 33-82976 and 33-95138 on Form S-8 and
registration statement No.'s 333-05379, 333-27841, 333-47793, 333-62969 and
333-75681 on Form S-3, of our reports dated January 28, 2000 relating to the
balance sheets of Ancor as of December 31, 1999 and 1998 and the related
statements of operations, shareholders' equity, and cash flows for each of the
years in the two-year period ended December 31, 1999 and the related schedule,
which reports appear in or are incorporated by reference in the December 31,
1999 annual report on Form 10-K of Ancor.

                                       KPMG LLP

Minneapolis, Minnesota
March 28, 2000
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

October 27, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136860 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Stephen J. Markman, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices 

v SC: 136860 

 COA: 274507 

Wayne CC: 06-003387-01

ISMAEL A. MALIK,

 Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 27, 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. 

l1020 

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. 

October 27, 2008 

 Clerk
NO. 12-08-00375-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

MICHAEL KENNEDY, § APPEAL FROM THE 3RD

APPELLANT

V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

JANICE STAPLES, § ANDERSON COUNTY, TEXAS

APPELLEE

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

This appeal is being dismissed for Appellant’s failure to comply with the Texas Rules of

Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3.

Appellant’s docketing statement was due to have been filed at the time the appeal was

perfected, i.e., September 19, 2008. See TEX. R. APP. P. 32.1. On that date, this court notified

Appellant that he should file a docketing statement within ten days if he had not already done so.

However, Appellant failed to file a docketing statement.

On October 2, 2008, this court issued a second notice advising Appellant that the docketing

statement was past due and giving him until October 13, 2008 to comply with Rule 32.1. The notice

further provided that failure to comply with this second notice would result in the appeal being

presented for dismissal in accordance with Rule 42.3. The time for filing the docketing statement

under this second notice has expired, and Appellant has not filed the docketing statement as required

by Rule 32.1 and the court’s notices. 
2

Because Appellant has failed, after notice, to comply with Rule 32.1, the appeal is dismissed.

See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c).

Opinion delivered October 22, 2008.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(PUBLISH)
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Appeal Chamber)

18 June 2008

Case T-164/07 P

**Asa Sundholm**

**v**

**Commission of the European Communities**

(Appeal – Civil service – Officials – Career development report – 2003 appraisal procedure – Rights of the defence – Appeal inadmissible – Appeal unfounded)

**Appeal:**against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 1 March 2007 in Case F-30/05 *Sundholm* v *Commission* [2007] ECR-SC I-A-1-0000 and II-A-1-0000, seeking to have that judgment set aside.

**Held:**The appeal is dismissed. Asa Sundholm is to bear her own costs and those incurred by the Commission in the present proceedings.

**Summary**

1.      *Officials – Reports procedure – Career development report – Rights of the defence – Scope*

*(Staff Regulations, Art. 43)*

2.      *Appeals – Pleas in law – Plea submitted for the first time in the context of the appeal – Inadmissible*

*(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 51)*

1.      Under the reports procedure established by the Commission, the fact that the appeal assessor consulted the assessor or work
colleagues of the official under appraisal without hearing the official’s views may not be regarded as an infringement of
the principle of observance of the rights of the defence provided that the information thus obtained is no different from
the information which served as the basis for the assessments previously formulated by the assessor and the countersigning
officer, or that, if that is the case, the appeal assessor does not intend to use that information to the official’s detriment.

(see paras 28-29)

See: T-308/04 *Ianniello* v *Commission* [2007] ECR-SC I-A-2-0000 and II-A-2-0000, para. 73

2.      Contending before the Court of First Instance that a finding of the Civil Service Tribunal is incorrect on the basis of a
different factual premiss from that on which the Tribunal was required to take a view is tantamount to relying on a new plea
in law which extends the subject-matter of the proceedings and cannot therefore be pleaded for the first time at the appeal
stage. The jurisdiction of the appeal court is confined to review of the findings of law on the pleas argued before the court
of first instance .

(see paras 41-42)

See: C‐266/05 P *Sison* v *Council* [2007] ECR I‐1233, para. 95 and the case-law cited therein