alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2016200EN.01001801.xml

| 6.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/18

---

Judgment of the General Court of 22 April 2016 — France v Commission

(Case T-56/06 RENV II) (1)

1

((State aid - Directive 92/81/EEC - Excise duties on mineral oils - Mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production - Exemption from excise - Legitimate expectations - Legal certainty - Reasonable time))

(2016/C 200/25)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues, D. Colas and R. Coesme, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, N. Khan, G. Conte, D. Grespan and K. Walkerová, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for the annulment of Article 5 of Commission Decision 2006/323/EC of 7 December 2005 concerning the exemption from excise duty on mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production in Gardanne, in the Shannon region and in Sardinia, respectively, implemented by France, Ireland and Italy (OJ 2006 L 119, p. 12), in so far as it obliges the French Republic to recover the State aid incompatible with the common market it granted, between 3 February 2002 and 31 December 2003, on the basis of the exemption from excise duty on mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production in the Gardanne region (France).

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs and to pay three quarters of the costs of the Commission in Cases T-56/06, T-56/06 RENV I and T-56/06 RENV II and three twentieths of the costs incurred by the Commission in Cases C-89/08 P and C-272/12 P; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs and to pay three quarters of the costs of the Commission in Cases T-56/06, T-56/06 RENV I and T-56/06 RENV II and three twentieths of the costs incurred by the Commission in Cases C-89/08 P and C-272/12 P;

| 3. | Orders the Commission to bear one quarter of its own costs in Cases T-56/06, T-56/06 RENV I and T-56/06 RENV II and one fifth of its own costs in Cases C-89/08 P and C-272/12 P. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Commission to bear one quarter of its own costs in Cases T-56/06, T-56/06 RENV I and T-56/06 RENV II and one fifth of its own costs in Cases C-89/08 P and C-272/12 P.

---

(1)  OJ C 96, 22.4.2006.

1

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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         558,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  397,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0<F1>
<INVENTORY>                                    120,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,183,000
<PP&E>                                       3,693,000<F2>
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,318,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,534,000
<BONDS>                                      1,146,000<F3>
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        63,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,575,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,318,000
<SALES>                                      2,360,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             9,902,000
<CGS>                                        2,422,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             8,174,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             202,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,147,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,147,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,147,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.18)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.18)
<FN>
<F1>Notes and accounts receivable - trade are reported net of allowances for
doubtful accounts in the Balance Sheet.
<F2>Property, plant and equipment are reported net of accumulated depreciation in
the Balance Sheet.
<F3>Excludes current portion.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Dr. Peter C. BENEDITH v. WAKE FOREST BAPTIST MEDICAL CENTER

No. 262A17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 28, 2017

Peter C. Benedith, for Benedith, Peter C. (Dr.)

Alan M. Ruley, Attorney at Law, Winston-Salem, for Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center.

Andrew A. Freeman, Attorney at Law, Winston-Salem.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by Plaintiff on the 31st of July 2017 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30 (substantial constitutional question), the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the notice of appeal is

"Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 28th of September 2017."
**Judgment of the General Court (Single Judge) of 6 May 2010 – Comune di Napoli v Commission**

**(Case T-388/07)**

ERDF – Reduction in assistance – Urban pilot project for the development of a telematic network for the city of Naples – Concept of irregularity – Eligible expenses

1.                     *Economic and social cohesion – Structural assistance – Community financing – Decision to reduce financial aid by reason of
irregularities – Irregularity – Concept (Council Regulation No 4253/88, Art. 24(2) and (3)) (see paras 46-48, 54-58, 161)*

2.                     *Economic and social cohesion – Structural assistance – Community financing – Application for modifications of contractual
conditions submitted by a body which benefited from aid – Duty of the Commission to reply within a reasonable time – Criteria
for assessment (see paras 88-92)*

3.                     *Economic and social cohesion – European Regional Development Fund – Decision to reduce financial assistance – Amount of reduction
determined without taking account of implementation of the project or of the absence of fraud or fraudulent intentions – Breach
of principle of proportionality – None (Council Regulations No 4253/88, Art. 24, and No 2988/95, Art. 2) (see paras 146-148,
152-154)*

4.                     *Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Sufficiently serious breach of Community law – None – Action devoid of legal foundation
(Art. 288, second para., EC) (see paras 174-178)*

5.                     *Non-contractual liability – Liability for a lawful act – Principle not recognised in Community law – Pleas designed to establish
abnormal and special loss and a causal link between that loss and the said act – Inoperative pleas (Art. 288, second para.,
EC) (see paras 184-188)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | First, annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 3893 of 8 August 2007, concerning a reduction in the assistance granted by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) under Article 10 of Regulation (EEC) No 4254/88, amended by Regulation (EEC) No 2083/93, to the city of Naples (Italy) by Commission Decision PH/1997/2761, approving the granting of ERDF assistance in the context of urban pilot project No 97.05.29.002 and, secondly, an application for damages seeking compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant following the adoption of the contested decision. |

**Operative part**

The Court:

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

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders the Comune di Napoli to pay the costs. |
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4076 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.4076

                     One Hundred Thirteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

           Begun and held at the City of Washington on Friday,
           the third day of January, two thousand and fourteen

                                 An Act

 
 To address shortages and interruptions in the availability of propane 
    and other home heating fuels in the United States, 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 ``Home Heating Emergency Assistance 
Through Transportation Act of 2014'' or the ``HHEATT Act of 2014''.
SEC. 2. PROPANE AND HOME HEATING FUEL EMERGENCY TRANSPORTATION.
    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a 
covered emergency exemption issued by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Administration shall remain in effect until May 31, 2014, unless the 
Secretary of Transportation, after consultation with the Governors of 
affected States, determines that the emergency for which the exemption 
was provided ends before that date.
    (b) Covered Emergency Exemption Defined.--In this section, the term 
``covered emergency exemption'' means an exemption issued under section 
390.23 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, or extended under 
section 390.25 of such title that--
        (1) was issued or extended during the period beginning on 
    February 5, 2014, and ending on the date of enactment of this Act; 
    and
        (2) provided regulatory relief for commercial motor vehicle 
    operations providing direct assistance supporting the delivery of 
    propane and home heating fuels.
    (c) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in subsection (a) may be 
construed to prohibit the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 
from issuing or extending a covered emergency exemption beyond May 31, 
2014, under other Federal law.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
#### Hossein ROKHIFAR, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. ED 82313.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.

Sept. 2, 2003.

Gwenda R. Robinson, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.

*685Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., John Munson Morris, III, Linda Lemke, Asst. Attys. Gen., Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.

Before CLIFFORD H. AHRENS, P.J., WILLIAM H. CRANDALL, JR. and LAWRENCE E. MOONEY, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

The movant, Hossein Rokhifar, appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. He contends he involuntarily pleaded guilty because his plea counsel assured him he would receive a sentence totaling ten years’ imprisonment.

Having reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, we conclude the motion court did not clearly err. Rule 24.035(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
IN RE E.A.S.H.

No. COA08-438.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed October 21, 2008.

Certification Date November 10, 2008.

Appeal from Wake (05JT397).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
Exhibit 32(a)

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 accompanying Quarterly Report of Windstream Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the
period ending June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jeffery R. Gardner, Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, 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/ Jeffery R. Gardner               
|Jeffery R. Gardner                   
|Chief Executive Officer and President
|August 8, 2007                       

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Windstream
Corporation and will be retained by Windstream Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# C_2014380EN.01001201.xml

| 27.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 380/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 380/12

---

Order of the General Court of 3 September 2014 — Diadikasia Symvouloi Epicheiriseon v Commission

(Case T-261/12) (1)

1

((Actions for damages - Public service contract - Tender procedure - Strengthening the institutional capacity of the Commission for protection of competition in Serbia - Rejection of a tender - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law))

2014/C 380/15

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Diadikasia Symvouloi Epicheiriseon AE (Chalandri, Greece) (represented by: A. Krystallidis, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Erlbacher and P. van Nuffel, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action for damages seeking compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the decision of the Delegation of the European Union in the Republic of Serbia to annul the decision to award the contract to the applicant in tender procedure EuropeAid/131427/C/SER/RS, concerning the strengthening of the institutional capacity of the Commission for protection of competition in Serbia (OJ 2011/S 147-243259).

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Diadikasia Symvouloi Epicheiriseon AE shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Diadikasia Symvouloi Epicheiriseon AE shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 243, 11.8.2012.

1

---
Note: This disposit ion is nonprecedential. 

## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2007-3057

ALFRANZO T. DAVIS, Petitioner,

v.

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, Respondent.

Alfranzo T. Davis , of Louisville, Kentucky, pro se. Joyce G. Friedman , Attorney, Office of the Gener al Counsel, United States Merit Systems Protection Board, of Washington, DC, for responden t. With her on the brief were B. Chad Bungard , General Counsel, Rosa M. Koppel , Deputy General Counsel, and Rosalyn L. Wilcots , Acting Associate General Counsel. Appealed from: United States Merit Systems Protection BoardNOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2007-3057

ALFRANZO T. DAVIS, Petitioner,

v. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, Respondent.

__________________________ DECIDED: April 6, 2007

__________________________

Before MAYER, RADER, Circuit Judges , and GARBIS, District Judge *

. PER CURIAM. Alfranzo T. Davis appeals the decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board, dismissing his petition as untimely filed. Davis v. U.S. Postal Serv. , CH-0752-06-0708-I1 (MSPB Nov. 15, 2006). We affirm

. Davis was required to file his board appeal within 30 da ys of receiving notice of the Postal Service’s decision to remove him, or to show good cause why he was unable to timely file. 5 C.F.R. §§ 1201.12, 1201.22. Davis, however, filed more than 30 days

* Honorable Marvin Garbis, Sr. Distric t Judge, United States District Court of Maryland, sitting by designation.after receiving the agency’s decision lette r, and he failed to present the board with evidence of good cause. He did not argue bef ore it that the medical records he now submits established good cause; and to the extent he so argu es to this court, we do not infer good cause from them. Finally, Davis’ request that the board c onsider the date his grievance was resolved in determining when his 30 days began to run is without merit. His grievance was a separate proceeding, and does not affect the deadlines under 5 C.F.R. § 1201.22.

2007-3057 2
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT**

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of ADESA, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, David G. Gartzke,Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18USC 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 result of operations ofthe Company.

 

 
| /s/    David G.  Gartzke |   |
|----------------------------------------------|--------|
| Chief Executive  Officer                     |

 

*This certification accompaniesthe Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 andshall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, bedeemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended.*

 

----
EXHIBIT 10.1.6

                         CONSUMER REPORT USER AGREEMENT
                          ADDENDUM FOR PAYMENT METHODS


                                      Terms

User does not wish to  pursue  automatic  withdrawal  as the  desired  method of
payment. Instead, the User certifies and agrees to:

*    Pay for services  based on an electronic  statement  system  similar to the
     format  used by  telephone  companies.  Terms are NET 30 days.  Accounts in
     arrears will assume a finance  charge of 2% per month or the highest lawful
     rate,  whichever is less. If an account goes to collection,  User agrees to
     pay all expenses, including reasonable legal fees.

One-time Set-Up Fee    $150.00

Monthly Subscription Fee Amount   $__________

o    Bill Set-Up Fee to Credit Card

o    Bill Set-Up Fee, Monthly  Subscription  Fee and any fee-based  Avert,  Inc.
     reports, services and forms to Credit Card on an on-going basis.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Card Type      Credit Card #                Exp. Date         Name of Cardholder

(Visa, Mastercard and American Express accepted.)

     *    To complete account set up, Avert,  Inc. will need to receive a signed
          copy of the  standard  Consumer  Report User  Agreement in addition to
          this signed Addendum.

     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
     User Authorized Signature                   Title                   Date

     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Avert Authorized Signature          Title                           Date
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6537

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus GEORGE WINFRED WOODSON, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr., District Judge. (CR-96-102-2, CA-97-674-2) Submitted: August 31, 1999 Decided: September 21, 1999 Before MURNAGHAN and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. George Winfred Woodson, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Lee Keller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 1999). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Woodson , Nos. CR-96-102-2; CA-97-674-2 (S.D.W. Va. Mar. 3, 1999). 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.

DISMISSED