alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2015245EN.01002701.xml

| 27.7.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 245/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.7.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 245/27

---

Order of the General Court of 22 May 2015 — Michelin Reifenwerke v Commission

(Case T-301/14) (1)

1

((State aid - Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings - Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU - Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought - No need to adjudicate))

(2015/C 245/32)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Michelin Reifenwerke AG & Co. KGaA (Karlsruhe, Germany) (represented by: T. Volz, M. Ringel, B. Wißmann, M. Püstow, C. Oehme and T. Wielsch, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, acting as Agents, and by A. Luke and C. Maurer, lawyers)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application to annul in part Commission decision C (2013) 4424 final of 18 December 2013 to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU regarding measures implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany in favour of renewable electricity and of energy-intensive users (State aid SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN)).

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present action.

| 2. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for intervention submitted by the EFTA Surveillance Authority. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for intervention submitted by the EFTA Surveillance Authority.

| 3. | Michelin Reifenwerke AG & Co. KGaA shall bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Michelin Reifenwerke AG & Co. KGaA shall bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures.

| 4. | The EFTA Surveillance Authority shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The EFTA Surveillance Authority shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.

1

---
# Official Journal C 272A/2006

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 272A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 499 November 2006 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 272A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 499 November 2006

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Information |
| | Commission |
| 2006/C 272A/1 | Common catalogue of agricultural plant species — sixth supplement to the 24th complete edition | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

I   Information

Commission

2006/C 272A/1

Common catalogue of agricultural plant species — sixth supplement to the 24th complete edition

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
Exhibit 12.1

 

CERTIFICATION

 

I, Amos Genish, certify that:

 

1.	I have reviewed this annual reporton Form 20-F of Telefônica Brasil S.A.;

 

2.	Based on my knowledge, this reportdoes not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made,in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;

 

3.	Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.	The Company’s other certifyingofficer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f))for the company and have:

 

a.	designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

b.	designed such internalcontrol over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision,to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements forexternal purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;

 

c.	evaluated the effectivenessof the company’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

d.	disclosed in this reportany change in the company’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annualreport that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the company’s internal control over financialreporting; and

 

5.	The Company’s other certifyingofficer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the company’sauditors and the audit committee of the company’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

a.	all significant deficienciesand material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the Company’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

b.	any fraud, whether ornot material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Company’s internal control overfinancial reporting.
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-1588

KEVIN ROBERTSON, Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. PETER V.R. FRANCHOT; JAMES T. LOFTUS, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson Everett Legg, Chief District Judge. (1:07-cv-03042-BEL)

Submitted: October 20, 2009 Decided: October 23, 2009

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kevin Robertson, Appellant Pro Se. Brian L. Oliner, Michael Joseph Salem, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Annapolis, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Kevin Robertson appeals the district court’s marginal order, entered on April 24, 2009, denying his motion to
reconsider the dismissal of his civil action. We have reviewed
the record and find the district did not abuse its discretion in denying Robertson’s motion to reconsider. See Boryan v. United
States , 884 F.2d 767, 771 (4th Cir. 1989) (providing review standard). Accordingly, we affirm. 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
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4462 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4462

 To require the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to discount 
 FHA single-family mortgage insurance premium payments for first-time 
    homebuyers who complete a financial literacy housing counseling 
                                program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 10, 2014

 Mrs. Beatty (for herself, Mr. Stivers, Mr. Hinojosa, Ms. Waters, Mrs. 
 Carolyn B. Maloney of New York, Mr. Clay, Mr. Meeks, Mr. Rangel, Ms. 
Fudge, Mr. Gutierrez, Ms. Linda T. Sanchez of California, Mr. Cardenas, 
   Ms. Sewell of Alabama, Mr. Connolly, Mr. Heck of Washington, Mr. 
  Swalwell of California, Ms. Lee of California, Ms. Jackson Lee, Ms. 
Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, Ms. Edwards, Mr. Ryan of Ohio, and Mr. 
 Johnson of Georgia) introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                 to the Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To require the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to discount 
 FHA single-family mortgage insurance premium payments for first-time 
    homebuyers who complete a financial literacy housing counseling 
                                program.

    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 ``Housing Financial Literacy Act of 
2014''.

SEC. 2. DISCOUNT ON MORTGAGE INSURANCE PREMIUM PAYMENTS FOR FIRST-TIME 
              HOMEBUYERS WHO COMPLETE FINANCIAL LITERACY HOUSING 
              COUNSELING PROGRAMS.

    The second sentence of subparagraph (A) of section 203(c)(2) of the 
National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1709(c)(2)(A)) is amended by striking 
``not exceed 2.75 percent of the amount of the original insured 
principal obligation of the mortgage'' and inserting ``be 25 basis 
points lower than the premium payment amount established by the 
Secretary under the first sentence of this subparagraph''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 10.2 2014.06.30






Exhibit 10.2


LPL FINANCIAL HOLDINGS INC.
Non-Employee Director Compensation Policy
Annual Cash Retainers
		
	•
	All non-employee directors receive a $65,000 annual retainer, paid quarterly.


		
	•
	The Audit Committee Chairperson receives an additional $20,000 as part of his or her annual retainer; each other member of the Audit Committee receives an additional $10,000 as part of his or her annual retainer.


		
	•
	The Compensation and Human Resources Committee Chairperson receives an additional $15,000 as part of his or her annual retainer; each other member of the Compensation and Human Resources Committee receives an additional $7,500 as part of his or her annual retainer.


		
	•
	The Nominating and Governance Committee Chairperson receives an additional $10,000 as part of his or her annual retainer; each other member of the Nominating and Governance Committee receives an additional $5,000 as part of his or her annual retainer. 


		
	•
	The Lead Director receives an additional $15,000 as part of his or her annual retainer.


		
	•
	A non-employee director will be entitled to receive a pro-rated annual retainer (including fees for committee service) for the quarter in which he or she was initially elected to the Board of Directors, calculated based on the number of days that have elapsed since the beginning of such quarter.


Equity Grants
Under the 2010 Omnibus Equity Incentive Plan, the Company grants to each non-employee director of the Company:
		
	•
	Restricted shares of the Company’s common stock (the “Common Stock”) with a value of $130,000 (based on the closing price of shares of the Common Stock on the grant date) on the next business day following the Company’s annual meeting of stockholders, such restricted shares to vest in full on the second anniversary of the grant date (the “Annual Grant”).


		
	•
	Upon a non-employee director’s initial election to the Board of Directors, a pro-rated Annual Grant calculated based on the number of days that have elapsed since the most recent annual meeting of stockholders, such restricted shares to vest in full on the second anniversary of the grant date. In the discretion of the Board of Directors, the grant date of such pro-rated Annual Grant may be delayed until the next open trading window under the Company’s insider trading policy then in effect.


Effective as of May 8, 2014
REPORT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


Board of Directors
DO Group, Inc.
Elkhart, Indiana

We have audited the consolidated balance sheets of DO Group, Inc. and
Subsidiary as of March 31, 1999 and 1998, and the related consolidated
statements of income and accumulated deficit and cash flows for the years then
ended (which do not appear herein).  Those financial statements are the
responsibility of the Company's management.  Our responsibility is to express
an opinion on those financial statements based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with generally accepted auditing
standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to
obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of
material misstatement.  An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence
supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements.  An audit
also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant
estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial
statement presentation.  We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis
for our opinion.

In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements referred to above
present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of DO Group,
Inc. and Subsidiary as of March 31, 1999 and 1998, and the results of its
operations and its cash flows for the years then ended in conformity with
generally accepted accounting principles.




                                        Crowe, Chizek and Company LLP

Elkhart, Indiana
May 4, 1999
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4203 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit interference with 

communication frequencies used by emergency response providers. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 11, 2014 

Mr. ISRAEL (for himself and Mr. KING of New York) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit interference with communication frequencies used by emergency response providers. 

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 ‘‘Emergency Responder 

5 Radio Communications Protection Act of 2014’’. 

6 SEC. 2. INTERFERENCE WITH COMMUNICATION FRE7 QUENCIES USED BY EMERGENCY RESPONSE 

8 PROVIDERS PROHIBITED. 

9 (a) PROHIBITION.—Chapter 65 of title 18, United 

10 States Code, is amended by inserting after the following: 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4203 IH

1 ‘‘§ 1370. Communication frequencies used by emer2 gency response providers 

3 ‘‘(a) OFFENSE.—Whoever knowingly— 

4 ‘‘(1) interferes in any way with the working or 

5 use of a communication frequency; or 

6 ‘‘(2) obstructs, hinders, or delays the trans7 mission of any communication over any such com8 munication frequency; 

9 or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be fined under 

10 this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both. 

11 ‘‘(b) DEFINITIONS.—In this section— 

12 ‘‘(1) the term ‘communication frequency’ means 

13 any radio frequency used by emergency response 

14 providers in their official capacity; 

15 ‘‘(2) the term ‘emergency response providers’ 

16 has the meaning given such term in Sec. 2(6) of the 

17 Homeland Security Act of 2002.’’. 

18 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections 

19 for chapter 65 of such title is amended by adding at the 

20 end the following: 

‘‘1370. Communications frequencies used by emergency response providers.’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 190 (Monday, October 3, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 57641]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-19701]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary


Aviation Proceedings, Agreements Filed the Week Ending September 
9, 2005

    The following Agreements were filed with the Department of 
Transportation under the sections 412 and 414 of the Federal Aviation 
Act, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1382 and 1384) and procedures governing 
proceedings to enforce these provisions. Answers may be filed within 21 
days after the filing of the application.
    Docket Number: OST-2005-22408.
    Date Filed: September 7, 2005.
    Parties: Members of the International Air Transport Association.
    Subject: Geneva, 4-8 July 2005, TC2 Europe Middle-East Resolutions, 
r1-r22.
    Minutes: TC2 Within Middle East, Europe-Middle East (Memo 0208).
    Tables: TC2 Europe-Middle East specified fare table (Memo 0104).
    Intended effective date: 1 January 2006.
    Docket Number: OST-2005-22412.
    Date Filed: September 7, 2005.
    Parties: Members of the International Air Transport Association.
    Subject: TC2 Within Middle East, (Memo 0147), r1-r15
    Minutes: TC2 Within Middle East, Geneva, 4-8 July 2005, (Memo 
0150).
    Tables: Geneva, 4-8 July 2005, TC2 Within Middle East (Memo 0054).
    Technical Correction: Geneva, 4-8 July 2005, TC2 within Middle 
East, (Memo 0055).
    Intended effective date: 1 January 2006.

Renee V. Wright,
Program Manager, Docket Operations, Federal Register Liaison.
[FR Doc. 05-19701 Filed 9-30-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-62-P
Exhibit 10.2


 


February 19, 2013


 


Dr. Bornstein Ltd.


18 Reines St.


Tel Aviv, Israel


 


Re:  Investment in Bluesphere Corp.


 


Dear Dr. Bornstein:


 


This will confirm the
terms on which you will invest in Bluesphere Corp (“Bluesphere”). You will invest an aggregate of $75,000 in Bluesphere
in three instalments as follows: (i) $25,000 in March 2013, (ii) $25,000 in April 2013 and (iii) $25,000 in May 2013. For each
instalment of $25,000, you will receive 10,000,000 shares of our common stock. These shares will be restricted and may only be
offered or sold pursuant to a registration statement under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or an exemption therefrom. Please
indicate your acceptance of such terms by counter-signing where indicated below.


 


Yours truly,


 


Shlomi Palas, CEO


 


	Agreed and accepted:	 
	 	 
	Dr. Bornstein Ltd.	 
	 	 
	 	 
	Authorized Signatory
[595 NYS2d 170]

#### James Ireland, Respondent, v J.L.’s Auto Sales, Inc., Appellant.

County Court, Wayne County,

January 6, 1993

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*James Ireland,*plaintiff *pro se. Michael D. Calarco,*for defendant.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Maurice E. Strobridge, J.

The defendant has appealed, for a second time, a verdict of the Justice Court of the Town of Arcadia rendered under *854UJCA article 18, which granted a judgment to the plaintiff in the amount of $1,923 *(see,*156 Misc 2d 845).

The facts are similar to those set forth in the court’s decision dated January 24, 1992 which reversed the verdict of the lower court and remanded the matter for a new hearing. The hearing was held, at which the defendant was allowed to defend a new theory, resulting in the same determination.

The issue now presented is whether the Justice properly found that the defendant had violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 417, which provides, *inter alia,*that the dealer, when delivering a used motor vehicle to a purchaser, must certify in writing that the vehicle "is in condition and repair to render, under normal use, satisfactory and adequate service upon the public highway at the time of delivery.” This notice requirement is amplified in 15 NYCRR 78.13 (b), which states that the statement must be printed on the "face of the dealer’s standard bill of sale.”

After discussing several court decisions concerning the meaning of "on the face” of a document, the Justice concluded that the defendant had not complied with section 417 since the required notice was on the reverse of the bill of sale. Coupled with this was the Justice’s noting that there was testimony that there was a discrepancy in the dates on the copy of the bill of sale the plaintiff received, and the date on the apparent original bill of sale that the defendant retained. The plaintiff also testified that he received a copy of only the front side of the bill of sale, which was not disputed by the defendant.

The plaintiff was awarded a judgment for the amount allowed for the vehicle traded in by the plaintiff ($1,350), for five monthly installment payments he made on the car loan ($498), and for certain repair costs ($75).

The total amount awarded seems unjustified when the plaintiff’s continued use of the automobile for several months and approximately 3,000 miles after his discovery of the alleged defects is considered. Based on the credible evidence, the plaintiff is entitled to a judgment, however the court finds that the amount awarded does not do substantial justice as between the parties (UJCA 1807.) The defendant should re*855ceive some credit for the plaintiffs use of the automobile after discovery of the defect.

Accordingly, the matter is remanded to the Justice Court for a further hearing to reconsider the amount of the judgment.
STATE of North Carolina v. Pierre AMERSON

No. 45P18

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

February 27, 2018

G. Glenn Gerding, Appellate Defender, Amanda S. Zimmer, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Amerson, Pierre.

Michael S. Beam, III, Assistant District Attorney, Joseph L. Hyde, Assistant Attorney General, Vernon K. Stewart, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

G. Glenn Gerding, Attorney at Law.

***ORDER***

Defendant's Emergency Petition for Writ of Certiorari is allowed: the orders entered by the trial court denying defendant's motion to continue on 15 December 2017 and denying defendant's reconsideration motion on 24 January 2018 are vacated; and this case is remanded to the Superior Court, Lee County, for the entry of an order allowing a reasonable continuance from the scheduled 19 March 2018 trial date and further proceedings not inconsistent with this order:

"Spec Order by order of the Court in conference, this the 27th of February 2018."

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 15th of February 2018 by Defendant to Consider Supplemental Ex Parte Transcript and Argument Related to Emergency Petition for Writ of Certiorari:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 27th of February 2018."