alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2009069EN.01000501.xml

| 21.3.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/5

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 January 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic

(Case C-150/07) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Late payment of own resources - Default interest payable - Accounting rules - ATA system)

(2009/C 69/06)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Wilms and M. Afonso, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, J.A. Anjos and C. Guerra Santos, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Infringement of Articles 2, 6(2), 9, 10 and 11 of Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 of 29 May 1989 implementing Decision 88/376/EEC, Euratom on the system of the Communities' own resources (OJ 1989 L 155, p. 1) — Refusal to pay default interest in the case of late payment of own resources under the ATA system — Accounting rules

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by refusing to pay to the Commission of the European Communities the default interest payable on account of the late payment of own resources under the ATA system, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2, 6(2) and 9 to 11 of Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 of 29 May 1989 implementing Decision 88/376/EEC, Euratom on the system of the Communities' own resources; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by refusing to pay to the Commission of the European Communities the default interest payable on account of the late payment of own resources under the ATA system, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2, 6(2) and 9 to 11 of Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 of 29 May 1989 implementing Decision 88/376/EEC, Euratom on the system of the Communities' own resources;

| 2. | Dismisses the remainder of the action; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the remainder of the action;

| 3. | Orders the Portuguese Republic to bear its own costs and to pay three quarters of the costs of the Commission of the European Communities; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Portuguese Republic to bear its own costs and to pay three quarters of the costs of the Commission of the European Communities;

| 4. | Orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear the remainder of its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear the remainder of its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 117, 26.5.2007.

1

---
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4200 

To amend the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 to prevent duplicative 

regulation of advisers of small business investment companies. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 11, 2014 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To amend the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 to prevent 

duplicative regulation of advisers of small business investment companies. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘SBIC Advisers Relief 

5 Act of 2014’’. 

6 SEC. 2. ADVISERS OF SBICS AND VENTURE CAPITAL FUNDS. 

7 Section 203(l) of the Investment Advisers Act of 

8 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80b–3(l)) is amended— 

9 (1) by striking ‘‘No investment adviser’’ and in10 serting the following: 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4200 IH

1 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—No investment adviser’’; 

2 and 

3 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

4 ‘‘(2) ADVISERS OF SBICS.—For purposes of this 

5 subsection, a venture capital fund includes an entity 

6 described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of sub7 section (b)(7) (other than an entity that has elected 

8 to be regulated or is regulated as a business develop9 ment company pursuant to section 54 of the Invest10 ment Company Act of 1940).’’. 

11 SEC. 3. ADVISERS OF SBICS AND PRIVATE FUNDS. 

12 Section 203(m) of the Investment Advisers Act of 

13 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80b–3(m)) is amended by adding at the 

14 end the following: 

15 ‘‘(3) ADVISERS OF SBICS.—For purposes of this 

16 subsection, the assets under management of a pri17 vate fund that is an entity described in subpara18 graph (A), (B), or (C) of subsection (b)(7) (other 

19 than an entity that has elected to be regulated or is 

20 regulated as a business development company pursu21 ant to section 54 of the Investment Company Act of 

22 1940) shall be excluded from the limit set forth in 

23 paragraph (1).’’. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4200 IH

1 SEC. 4. RELATIONSHIP TO STATE LAW. 

2 Section 203A(b)(1) of the Investment Advisers Act 

3 of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80b–3a(b)(1)) is amended— 

4 (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘or’’ at 

5 the end; 

6 (2) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period 

7 at the end and inserting ‘‘; or’’; and 

8 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

9 ‘‘(C) that is not registered under section 

10 203 because that person is exempt from reg11 istration as provided in subsection (b)(7) of 

12 such section, or is a supervised person of such 

13 person.’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
---

---

# Exhibit 4.13

# ENGLISH SUMMARY OF THE
MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT(ORIGINAL LANGUAGE  HEBREW)

BY AND AMONG

# POINTER (EDEN TELECOM
GROUP) LTD.

# GANDYR INVESTMENTS LTD.

# GOVLI LTD.

# SULAM FINANCIAL
HOLDINGS LTD.

AND

# EGGED HOLDINGS LTD.

Dated November 16,
2004(the
Agreement)

|Description: 
                       
                       
                       
                       
                       
Services: 
                       
                       
                       
                       
                       
                       
Effective Date: 
                       
                       
                       
                       
Term: 
Consideration (annual):
Termination Provisions: | Management   Agreement  pursuant  to  which  Egged
Holdings  Ltd.,  Gandyr  Investments  Ltd.,  Govli
Ltd.,  Sulam  Financial  Holdings  Ltd.  and Egged
Holdings Ltd.  (together,  the "Investors")  shall
provide  certain  management  services  to Pointer
(Eden Telecom Group) Ltd. ("Pointer").
The services to be provided by the Investors
include: assisting Pointer in raising capital,
participating in management meetings, consulting
Pointer with respect to its long term and short
term business plan, advancing and developing
Pointer's business and assisting Pointer in its
negotiations with potential investors.
Commencing 24 months after the consummation of
the transaction pursuant to which Pointer shall
purchase certain activities and assets of Shagrir
Towing Services Ltd. and its subsidiary, Shagrir
(1985) Ltd., that is, March 1, 2007.
Unspecified.
NIS 1 million, subject to certain conditions.
Unspecified.
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



---

---
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.2 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, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report),
I, Alan G. Shuler, 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: (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 22, 2005 /s/ Alan G. ShulerAlan ShulerChief Financial Officer
**EXHIBIT 32.2****CERTIFICATION OF CFO OF PERIODIC REPORT**     The undersigned, Mark E. Pape, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer ofAffirmative Insurance Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”), certifies, pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, to the best of his knowledge, that:(1) the Interim Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period endedJune 30, 2006 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operationsof the Company.Dated: August 9, 2006              /s/ Mark E. Pape   Mark E. Pape   Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Kevin R. Callahan, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of Affirmative Insurance
Holdings, Inc. (the Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 to the best of my knowledge, that:



|(1) | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2009 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(2) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This certificate is being furnished solely for purposes of Section 906.

Date: May 11, 2009



/s/ Kevin R. CallahanKevin R. CallahanChairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company
and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

In the Matter of : No. 149 DB 2021 (No. 2 RST 2022)

:

MARTIN E. ODSTRCHEL : Attorney Registration No. 68603

:

PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT :

 FROM RETIRED STATUS : (Out of State)

O R D E R

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 13th day of January, 2022, the Report and Recommendation of 

Disciplinary Board Member dated January 4, 2022, is approved and it is ORDERED that

MARTIN E. ODSTRCHEL, who has been on Retired Status, has never been suspended 

or disbarred, and has demonstrated that he has the moral qualifications, competency and 

learning in law required for admission to practice in the Commonwealth, shall be and is, 

hereby reinstated to active status as a member of the Bar of this Commonwealth. The 

expenses incurred by the Board in the investigation and processing of this matter shall 

be paid by the Petitioner.
STATE v. Reginald Underwood FULLARD

309P15-3

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 27, 2017

Kathryn L. VandenBerg, Assistant Appellant Defender, Reginald Fullard, for Fullard, Reginald Underwood

Karen A. Blum, Special Deputy Attorney General, James R. O'Neill, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 26th of June 2017 by Defendant for Appeal for Order Entry:

> "Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 27th of June 2017."
---

---

Exhibit 10.2

# Grant Thornton

# Auditores y Consultores

# CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
AUDITORS

To the Shareholders of Tracsat SA

We hereby consent to the
incorporation by reference in the registration statements of Nexus Telocation Systems Ltd.
(the Company), on Form F-3 and on Form S-8, and each prospectus constituting a
part thereof, of our report dated February 26, 2004 as amended, relating to the financial
statements for Tracsat SA for the year ended December 31, 2003 included in the Annual
Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2003, which is to be filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

GRANT THORNTON ARGENTINA
S.C.

/s/ Leonardo FragaPartner

Buenos Aires, Argentina 
June 23, 2004



---

---
RECEIVED IN

The J-.'urt of Appeals

Sixth District

NOV 3 0 2015

COURT OF APPEALS

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

Texarkana, Texas - CTATF OF TFYA^ Debra Autrey, Clerk bIAlb Oh lEXAb

RE: APPELLATE CASE NUMBER: 06-15-00005-CV

TRIAL COURT CASE NUMBER: 2013-391

STYLE: BILLIE MURPHY TREMBLE, SHARON TREMBLE DONALDSON,

SELIA TREMBLE SHAWKEY, WILMER FORREST TREMBLE, JR.,

THE ESTATE OF WILMER FORREST TREMBLE, SRV Appellants,

Vs.

LUMINANT MINING COMPANY LLC, ENERGY FUTURE HOLDINGS

CORPORATION, ANDSUBSIDIARIES, Appellees.

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

In response to the court date of October 27, 2015, we the Tremble

Family are asking the court to reinstate the Appeal on our behalf in

reference to the No Summary Judgment.
STATE of North Carolina v. Cortez Likelv PITT, Defendant.

No. COA16-709

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: February 21, 2017

NO ERROR.
**Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 25 November 2008 – CFCMCEE v OHIM (SURFCARD)**

**(Case T-325/07)**

Community trade mark – Application for Community word mark SURFCARD – Absolute ground for refusal – Partially descriptive character – Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications which may serve to designate the characteristics of goods (Council Regulation
No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 47, 64, 68, 73, 77-78, 81-84)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 June 2007 (Case R 1130/2006-1) concerning an application for registration of the word sign SURFCARD as a Community trade mark. |

**Information relating to the case**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| Applicant for the Community trade mark: | Caisse fédérale du Crédit mutuel Centre-Est Europe (CFCMCEE) |
| Community trade mark sought: | Word mark SURFCARD for goods and services in Classes 9, 36 and 38 – Application No 3837564 |
| Decision of the Opposition Division: | Partial refusal of registration |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Appeal dismissed |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 14 June 2007 (Case R 1130/2006-1) to the extent that it refuses the registration as a Community trade mark of the word sign SURFCARD for ‘magnetic data media, optical data media’ falling within Class 9 and ‘credit card services, debit card services’ falling within Class 36 of the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 3. | | Orders the Caisse fédérale du Crédit mutuel Centre-Est Europe (CFCMCEE) and OHIM to bear their own costs. |
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

October 27, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

134222 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

BEST CARE REHABILITATION, INC., 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

Justices 

v SC: 134222 

 COA: 272395 

Wayne CC: 05-527836-NO

ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

By order of December 28, 2007, the application for leave to appeal the March 20, 

2007 judgment of the Court of Appeals was held in abeyance pending the decision in 

Miller v Allstate (Docket Nos. 134393, 134406). On order of the Court, the case having 

been decided on July 2, 2008, 481 Mich 601 (2008), the application is again considered, 

and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be 

reviewed by this Court. 

1020 

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
The NORTH CAROLINA STATE BAR v. David C. SUTTON, Attorney

No. 426A16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 16, 2017

David C. Sutton, Greenville, Erika Sutton, for Sutton, David C.

David R. Johnson, Deputy Counsel, Carmen Bannon, Deputy Counsel, for N.C. State Bar.

Mary D. Winstead, Deputy Counsel.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by the Defendant on the 21st of November 2016 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30, and the motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question filed by the Plaintiff the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the motion to dismiss the appeal is

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 16th of March 2017."
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-4362

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

EDWARD CASH, a/k/a Eddie, a/k/a Ed,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District

Judge. (3:07-cr-01254-CMC-1)

Submitted: October 2, 2008 Decided: October 27, 2008

Before WILKINSON, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

H. Wayne Floyd, WAYNE FLOYD LAW OFFICE, West Columbia, South

Carolina, for Appellant. W. Walter Wilkins, United States

Attorney, William K. Witherspoon, Assistant United States Attorney,

Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. 

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

PER CURIAM:

Edward Cash pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to

conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute 500 grams or

more of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 846

(2000), and was sentenced to 235 months in prison. Cash’s sole

contention on appeal is that it was error for the district court to

enhance his sentence under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) (2000) when no

21 U.S.C. § 851 (2000) information was filed by the Government.

Finding no reversible error, we affirm. 

Cash explicitly agreed in his plea agreement that the

Government complied with § 851's notice requirements and that he

would not challenge the qualifying nature of his prior convictions.

He also attested at his plea hearing that he read his plea

agreement, was familiar with and understood this provision, and

entered the plea agreement knowingly and voluntarily. Despite the

seemingly mandatory phrasing of § 851, we have recently recognized

that its formal requirements can be waived. United States v.

Beasley, 495 F.3d 142, 148 (4th Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 128 S.

Ct. 1471 (2008). In light of the particular facts revealed by the

record in this appeal, we conclude that Cash waived his right to

challenge the Government’s technical noncompliance with § 851. See

United States v. Mooring, 287 F.3d 725, 728 (8th Cir. 2002)

(finding § 851's notice requirements waived by the defendant where:

(i) the defendant stipulated in his plea agreement that he received
- 3 -

proper § 851 notice, even though he had not; (ii) admitted the

prior conviction to the district court; and (iii) indicated that he

was aware of the enhanced sentence). 

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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
Exhibit 10.1




 


June 30, 2014


 


Mr. Charles F. Dolan


Cablevision Systems Corporation


1111 Stewart Avenue


Bethpage, NY 11714


 


Dear Charles:


 



		Re:	Amendment to Time Sharing Agreement










Reference is made hereby to that certain Time Sharing Agreement (the “Agreement”) dated November 22, 2006 by and between you and CSC Holdings, LLC, as successor-in-interest to CSC Transport IV, Inc. (“CSC”), as amended to date.


 


You and CSC hereby agree that, effective as of June 1, 2014, Section 2 of the Agreement shall be amended to read in full as follows:


 


“2.       Payment for Use of Aircraft.  Lessee shall pay Lessor the following actual expenses of each flight conducted under this Agreement (the “Reimbursement Amount”) not to exceed the maximum amount legally payable for such flight under FAR Section 91.501(d)(1)-(10):








		(a)	fuel, oil, lubricants and other additives;











		(b)	travel expenses of crew, including food, lodging and ground transportation;











		(c)	hangar and tie-down costs away from the Aircraft's base of operation;











		(d)	additional insurance obtained for the specific flight at the request of Lessee;











		(e)	landing fees, airport taxes and similar assessments;











		(f)	customs, foreign permit and similar fees directly related to the flight;











		(g)	in-flight food and beverages;











		(h)	in-flight telecommunication expenses;











		(i)	passenger ground transportation; and











		(j)	flight planning and weather contract services.











Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the event that any income is required to be imputed to you with respect to personal use of the Aircraft, calculated using the Standard Industry Fare Level method in accordance with Internal Revenue Service Regulation §1.61-21, the amount payable by you pursuant to this Section 2 shall be reduced by the amount necessary so that the total out of pocket cost to you, including taxes owed as a result of imputed income, is no greater than the Reimbursement Amount.”







Except as set forth herein, the Agreement shall continue in full force and effect in accordance with its terms.


 


	
 

	
Sincerely,


	
 

	
 


	
 

	
CSC HOLDINGS, LLC


	
 

	
 


	
 

	
/s/ Jennifer Love


	
 

	
Name: Jennifer Love


	
 

	
Title: SVP, CSO & Aviation










Accepted and agreed:







/s/ Charles F. Dolan


Charles F. Dolan


 


 


-2-