alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2011269EN.01004302.xml

| 10.9.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 269/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.9.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 269/43

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2011 — Polimeri Europa v Commission

(Case T-59/07) (1)

1

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market in butadiene rubber and emulsion styrene butadiene rubber - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Imputability of the offending conduct - Single infringement - Proof of the existence of the cartel - Fines - Gravity and duration of the infringement - Aggravating circumstances)

2011/C 269/95

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Polimeri Europa SpA (Brindisi, Italy) (represented by: M. Siragusa and F. Moretti, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, G. Conte and V. Bottka, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 5700 final of 29 November 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.638 — Butadiene Rubber and Emulsion Styrene Butadiene Rubber) or, in the alternative, annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on Polimeri Europa SpA.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Article 2(c) of Commission Decision C(2006) 5700 final of 29 November 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.638 — Butadiene Rubber and Emulsion Styrene Butadiene Rubber) in so far as it sets the amount of the fine imposed on Polimeri Europa SpA at EUR 272,25 million; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Article 2(c) of Commission Decision C(2006) 5700 final of 29 November 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.638 — Butadiene Rubber and Emulsion Styrene Butadiene Rubber) in so far as it sets the amount of the fine imposed on Polimeri Europa SpA at EUR 272,25 million;

| 2. | Sets the amount of the fine imposed on Polimeri Europa at EUR 181,5 million; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Sets the amount of the fine imposed on Polimeri Europa at EUR 181,5 million;

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

3.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 4. | Orders the parties to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 95, 28.4.2007.

1

---
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 99.1

                            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 Annual Report of MakeMusic! Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Sean Lafleur, 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, 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.

         Dated: March 20, 2003

                                                /s/ Sean Lafleur
                                                Sean Lafleur
                                                Chief Executive Officer
STATE v. Rahmil INGRAM

367P16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 5, 2016

James R. Grant, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Ingram, Rahmil.

Derrick Mertz, Assistant Attorney General, Roger A. Echols, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 5th of October 2016 by State of NC for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th of October 2016."
# C_2008313EN.01000501.xml

| 6.12.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 313/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 October 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-136/07) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directives 89/48/EEC and 92/51/EEC - Recognition of diplomas and professional education and training - Profession of air traffic controller)

(2008/C 313/07)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. Støvlbæk and R. Vidal Puig, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M Muñoz Pérez, Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Failure of Member State to fulfil its obligations — Infringement of Council Directives 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years' duration (OJ 1989 L 19, p. 16) and 92/51/EEC of 18 June 1992 on a second general system for the recognition of professional education and training to supplement Directive 89/48/EEC (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 25) — Taking up the profession of air traffic controller.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to adopt, in connection with the profession of air traffic controller, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years' duration and Council Directive 92/51/EEC of 18 June 1992 on a second general system for the recognition of professional education and training to supplement Directive 89/48, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under those directives; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt, in connection with the profession of air traffic controller, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years' duration and Council Directive 92/51/EEC of 18 June 1992 on a second general system for the recognition of professional education and training to supplement Directive 89/48, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under those directives;

| 2. | Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 117, 26.5.2007.

1

---
EXHIBIT 99.1


                            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  Annual  Report  of  Coastal  Bancorp,  Inc. (the
"Company")  on  Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the
Securities  and  Exchange Commission on March 25, 2003 (the "Report"), I, Manuel
J.  Mehos,  Chairman  of  the  Board and 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,  that:

     (1)     The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) 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.


Dated:  March  25,  2003                              By     /s/ Manuel J. Mehos
                                                             -------------------
                                                               Manuel  J.  Mehos
                                             Chairman  of  the  Board  and Chief
                                                              Executive  Officer
<PAGE>
STATE of North Carolina v. Marvin Everette MILLER, Jr.

No. 217PA17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 17, 2017

Mark Montgomery, Attorney at Law, for Miller, Marvin Everette (Jr.).

David J. Adinolfi, II, Special Deputy Attorney General, J. Douglas Henderson, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by State of NC on the 3rd of July 2017 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 17th of August 2017."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 12th of July 2017 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 17th of August 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).
Unassociated Document



Exhibit 10.2


 


COMMON STOCK SUBSCRIPTION







As of July 3, 2014







To the Board of Directors of


PRICED IN CORP.:







1.           The undersigned hereby subscribes for 5,000,000 shares of common stock, par value $0.001 per share, of PRICED IN CORP., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”), and agrees to pay therefor a total consideration equal to $50,000.00 in cash per share.







The undersigned hereby agrees, represents, and warrants that:







(1)           He/She/It is acquiring such shares for his/her its own account (and not for the account of others) for investment and not with a view to the distribution or resale thereof;







(2)           By virtue of his/her/its position, he/she/it has access to the same kind of information which would be available in a registration statement filed under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), has conducted his/her/its own due diligence review of the Company, and has had the opportunity to ask question of, and receive answers from, the Company in connection therewith;







(3)           He/She/It is a sophisticated investor and an “accredited investor,” as defined in Rule 501 of Regulation D under the Securities Act;







(4)           He/She/It understands that he/she/it may not sell or otherwise dispose of such shares in the absence of either an effective registration statement under the Securities Act or an exemption from the registration provisions of the Securities Act; and







(5)           The certificates representing such shares may contain a legend to the effect of (4) above.


 




	 	
Very truly yours,

	 
	 	 	 
	 	 
CAPTAIN’s CREW LLC

	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	
By: 

	 	 
	 	 	Jay Lassky	 
	 	 	Manager	 





 





	
Accepted as of the date set forth above:


	 	 
	 
 
PRICED IN CORP.



	 
	 	 	 
	
By: 

	 	 
	 	Name: Jay Lasky	 
	 	Title: Chief Executive Officer
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 12.1

                               General Media, Inc.
                Computation of Ratio of Earning to Fixed Charges
                             Year Ended December 31,

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                   1998           1999           2000           2001           2002
                                               ------------   ------------   ------------   ------------   ------------
<S>                                            <C>            <C>            <C>            <C>            <C>
Income (loss) from continuing operations,
   before income taxes                         ($ 3,879,000)  $ 22,606,000   $  5,467,000   ($ 9,966,000)  $  1,586,000
                                               ------------   ------------   ------------   ------------   ------------
Adjustments to income (loss)
   Interest expense                               9,918,000      7,969,000      6,865,000      8,003,000      7,258,000
   Interest income                                 (517,000)      (762,000)      (495,000)      (289,000)       (67,000)
   Interest expense in rental charges               757,000        615,000        594,000        594,000        654,000
                                               ------------   ------------   ------------   ------------   ------------
Adjusted income (loss)                         $  6,279,000   $ 30,428,000   $ 12,431,000   ($ 1,658,000)  $  9,431,000
                                               ============   ============   ============   ============   ============
Fixed charges
   Interest expense                            $  9,918,000   $  7,969,000   $  6,865,000   $  8,003,000   $  7,258,000
   Interest expense in rental charges               757,000        615,000        594,000        594,000        654,000
                                               ------------   ------------   ------------   ------------   ------------
Total fixed charges                            $ 10,675,000   $  8,584,000   $  7,459,000   $  8,597,000   $  7,912,000
                                               ============   ============   ============   ============   ============
Earnings insufficient to cover fixed charges   ($ 4,396,000)                                ($10,255,000)
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                  (b)                3.5            1.7        (b)                1.2
</TABLE>

(b) For 1998 and 2001 earnings were insufficient to cover fixed charges.
credit for time served in the instant case, we disagree. NRS 176.055(1) 

does not apply because Mower's confinement was not "pursuant to a 

judgment of conviction for another offense." 

There is no indication in the record before us that federal 

authorities placed a hold on Mower after his arrest leading to the instant 

conviction. Further, the State does not challenge the following assertion 

made by Mower on appeal: 

From the date of arrest through the date of 

sentencing, the federal government did not issue 

any writs to obtain custody of appellant. 

Additionally, there has not been any 

correspondence or any information indicating that 

the federal government is seeking custody of 

appellant; except for . . . a written statement made 

by the Presentence Investigation [report] writer 

that the federal government would seek parole 

revocation after the Nevada case is completed. 

It appears that Mower was taken into custody and confined solely due to 

the instant offense and is entitled to credit for the time served prior to his 

sentencing. See State v. Dist. Ct. (Jackson), 121 Nev. 413, 416, 116 P.3d 

834, 836 (2005) ("[D]espite its discretionary language, the purpose of NRS 

176.055 is to 'ensure that all time served is credited towards a defendant's 

ultimate sentence." (quoting Kuykendall v. State, 112 Nev. 1285, 1287, 

926 P.2d 781, 783 (1996))). Therefore, this matter must be remanded to 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 1947A 

EWE& , an" 
J. 

the district court for the awarding of 141 days' credit for time served and 

the amending of Mower's judgment of conviction. Accordingly, we 

ORDER this matter REMANDED to the district court for 

proceedings consistent with this order. 1 2 

J. 

Hardesty 

J. 

Douglas 

1The fast track statement submitted by Mower does not comply with 

the Nevada Rules of Appellate Procedure because the procedural history 

and statement of facts do not contain any citations to the record. See 

NRAP 3C(e)(1)(C) and NRAP 28(e)(1). Counsel for Mower is cautioned 

that the failure to comply with the briefing requirements in the future 

may result in the imposition of sanctions. See NRAP 3C(n). 

2This order constitutes our final disposition of this appeal. Any 

subsequent appeal shall be docketed as a new matter. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 3 

(0 1 ,147A 
cc. Hon. Valorie J. Vega, District Judge 

Clark County Public Defender 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 4 

(0) 1947A 

4‘ 

13,..Sr:T3
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-1323

In Re: DANIEL JOHNSON WILLIS, 

 Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Malcolm J. Howard, 

Senior District Judge. (4:08-mc-00002) 

Submitted: October 21, 2008 Decided: October 23, 2008

Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Daniel Johnson Willis, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Daniel Johnson Willis appeals the district court’s 

order denying his motion for leave to file a new civil action. 

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm the order for the reasons stated by the 

district court. In re: Daniel Willis, No. 4:08-mc-00002 

(E.D.N.C. filed Feb. 7 & entered Feb. 8, 2008). We dispense 

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before the court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED
State v. Larry McLeod Pulley

42P04-9

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 26, 2017

Larry McLeod Pulley, For Larry McLeod Pulley.

Daniel P. O'Brien, Special Deputy Attorney General, Vernon K. Stewart, District Attorney, For State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 28th of December 2016 by Defendant for Petition for Discretionary Review:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 26th of January 2017."
Kevin POSEY, Plaintiff, v. WAYNE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, INC. and Wayne Health Corporation, Defendants.

No. COA16-1218

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: May 16, 2017

AFFIRMED.
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Markus Hollingsworth, :

Petitioner :

: No. 2024 C.D. 2016

v. :

:

Unemployment Compensation :

Board of Review, :

Respondent :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 10th day of August, 2018, it is ORDERED that the 

above-captioned opinion filed May 17, 2018, shall be designated OPINION rather 

than MEMORANDUM OPINION, and it shall be reported.

________________________________

PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge
# C_2008142EN.01002503.xml

| 7.6.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/25

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 10 April 2008 — 2K-Teint and Others v Commission and EIB

(Case T-336/06) (1)

1

(Non-contractual liability - Financing contract concluded with Morocco - EIB's alleged negligence and failures in monitoring a loan financed by the Community budget - Limitation - Inadmissibility)

(2008/C 142/46)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: 2K-Teint SARL (Casablanca, Morocco); Mohammed Kermoudi, Khalid Kermoudi, Laila Kermoudi, Mounia Kermoudi, Salma Kermoudi and Rabia Kermoudi (Casablanca) (represented by: P. Thomas, lawyer)

Applicants:

Defendants: Commission of the European Communities (represented by A. Aresu and V. Joris, Agents) and European Investment Bank (EIB) (represented by C. Gómez de la Cruz and J.-P. Minnaert, Agents)

Defendants:

Re:

Action for compensation for the loss allegedly suffered by the applicants by reason of the EIB's negligence and failures in monitoring the use of funds intended for the completion of the project of 2K-Teint, in performance of the financing contract concluded between the EIB, as agent of the Community, and the Kingdom of Morocco.

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible;

| 2. | 2K-Teint SARL, Mohammed Kermoudi, Khalid Kermoudi, Laila Kermoudi, Mounia Kermoudi, Salma Kermoudi and Rabia Kermoudi are ordered to pay, in addition to their own costs, the costs incurred by the Commission and the European Investment Bank (EIB). |
| --- | --- |

2.

2K-Teint SARL, Mohammed Kermoudi, Khalid Kermoudi, Laila Kermoudi, Mounia Kermoudi, Salma Kermoudi and Rabia Kermoudi are ordered to pay, in addition to their own costs, the costs incurred by the Commission and the European Investment Bank (EIB).

---

(1)  OJ C 20, 27.1.2007.

1

---
United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

S.G., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, 

VETERANS HEALTH ADMINISTRATION, 

MEDICAL CENTER, Murfreesboro, TN, 

Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-18 

Issued: March 2, 2015 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

ORDER REMANDING CASE 

Before: 

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

PATRICIA HOWARD FITZGERALD, Judge 

On October 2, 2014 appellant filed a timely appeal from a June 9, 2014 decision of the 

Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP) denying her occupational disease claim. 

The Board has duly considered the matter and finds that the case is not in posture for a 

decision and must be remanded to OWCP. In the case of William A. Couch,

1

 the Board held that 

when adjudicating a claim, OWCP is obligated to consider all evidence properly submitted by a 

claimant and received by it before the final decision is issued. 

In this case, appellant filed an occupational disease claim on April 29, 2014. In a May 6, 

2014 letter, OWCP advised her of the type of medical evidence needed to establish her claim. 

Appellant submitted a variety of medical records dated from February through April 2014. 

OWCP received these records on June 9, 2014. 

In its June 9, 2014 decision, OWCP denied appellant’s claim, finding that she submitted 

no evidence in response to its May 6, 2014 request. It did not address the medical records she 

 1

 41 ECAB 548 (1990). 
2

submitted that were received on June 9, 2014.2

 For this reason, the case will be remanded to 

OWCP to enable it to properly consider all the evidence submitted prior to the June 9, 2014 

decision. Following such further development as OWCP deems necessary, it shall issue an 

appropriate merit decision on the claim. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the decision of the Office of Workers’ 

Compensation Programs dated June 9, 2014 is set aside. The case record is remanded to OWCP 

for further proceedings consistent with this order of the Board. 

Issued: March 2, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia Howard Fitzgerald, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 2 See Linda Johnson, 45 ECAB 439, 440 (1994) (where the Board held that it is necessary that OWCP review all 

evidence submitted by a claimant and received by OWCP prior to issuance of its final decision and noted that this 

principle applies with equal force when evidence is received by OWCP the same day a final decision is issued).