jurisdiction: US

text:
Attorney Grievance Commission v. Neil Warren Steinhorn, Misc. Docket AG No. 15,
 September Term, 2017
 ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT — DISCIPLINE — INDEFINITE SUSPENSION —
 Respondent, Neil Warren Steinhorn, violated Maryland Lawyers’ Rules of Professional
 Conduct 3.3(a)(1) and 8.4(a), (c), and (d). These violations stemmed from Respondent’s
 misrepresentations to the court about the total amount owed to Respondent’s client, a home
 owners’ association (“HOA”), by its debtors, several condominium owners who failed to
 pay their monthly HOA fees. Specifically, in the complaints filed to recoup this debt,
 Respondent grouped his attorney’s fees with the damages sought, listing one aggregate
 figure, even though the complaint form specifies that damages and attorney’s fees should
 be itemized on separate lines. In doing so, Respondent misrepresented to the court that he
 was not seeking any attorney’s fees, which prevented the court from assessing the
 reasonableness of those fees. An indefinite suspension with the right to apply for
 reinstatement after six months is the appropriate sanction for this misconduct.
 Circuit Court for Baltimore County
 Case No. 03-C-17-006386
 Argued: October 9, 2018
 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
 OF MARYLAND
 Misc. Docket AG No. 15
 September Term, 2017
 ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION
 OF MARYLAND
 v.
 NEIL WARREN STEINHORN
 Barbera, C.J.,
 Greene
 *Adkins
 McDonald
 Watts
 Hotten
 Getty,
 JJ.
 Opinion by Barbera, C.J.
 Filed: December 20, 2018
 *Adkins, J., now retired, participated in the
 hearing and conference of this case while an
 active member of this Court; after being recalled
 Pursuant to Maryland Uniform Electronic Legal Materials Act
 pursuant to the MD. Constitution, Article IV,
 (§§ 10-1601 et seq. of the State Government Article) this document
 is authentic.
 Section 3A, she also participated in the decision
 2018-12-20 and adoption of this opinion.
 10:42-05:00
 Suzanne C. Johnson, Clerk
 On June 26, 2017, the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland (“Petitioner”),
 acting through Bar Counsel, filed in this Court a Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial
 Action (“Petition”) against Neil Warren Steinhorn (“Respondent”). The Petition alleged,
 among other things,1 violations of the Maryland Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct
 (“MLRPC”) 3.3 (Candor Toward the Tribunal) and 8.4 (Misconduct).2 Those charges arise
 from misleading complaints Respondent filed with the District Court of Maryland sitting
 in Baltimore County while representing the Council of Unit Owners of Kingswood
 Commons, Inc. (“Kingswood”), a homeowners’ association, in several debt collection
 cases. Specifically, Respondent inflated the damages sought on the complaint form by
 thirty percent without separately indicating, as the form requires, that this increase
 constituted his attorney’s fees.
 Pursuant to Maryland Rules 19-722(a) and 19-727, this Court designated the
 Honorable Keith R. Truffer (“hearing judge”) of the Circuit Court for Baltimore County to
 conduct an evidentiary hearing and make findings of fact and conclusions of law. The
 hearing was held on March 13, 2018. Respondent testified and presented evidence on his
 1
 The Petition initially alleged that Respondent also violated MLRPC 1.5 (Fees),
 1.15 (Safekeeping Property), and 1.16 (Declining or Terminating Representation), but
 Petitioner dropped these charges after the hearing.
 2
 On July 1, 2016, the Maryland Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct were
 renamed the Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct and were recodified,
 without substantive changes, to Title 19 of the Maryland Rules. Because we judge
 Respondent’s conduct based on the extant rules at the time of his actions, we refer to the
 MLRPC throughout this decision. Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Butler, 456 Md. 227,
 230 n.1 (2017).
 behalf. On April 27, 2018, the hearing judge issued written findings of fact and conclusions
 of law, concluding that Respondent did not commit any violations of the MLRPC.
 Bar Counsel, on behalf of Petitioner, took no issue with the hearing judge’s findings
 of fact but filed exceptions to each conclusion of law. Petitioner asserts that Respondent
 violated MLRPC 3.3(a)(1) and 8.4 because he provided the District Court with false
 information, misled the District Court with that information, and engaged in disreputable
 conduct. Petitioner also excepts to the hearing judge’s finding of certain mitigating factors
 and asks us to consider other aggravating factors in addition to the ones the hearing judge
 found. Respondent counters that although he made a mistake, he did not violate any of the
 MLRPC.
 On October 9, 2018, this Court heard oral argument in this matter. Petitioner asks
 us to disbar or, in the alternative, suspend Respondent. Respondent requests that we affirm
 the hearing judge’s legal conclusions and dismiss this action. For the following reasons,
 we agree with Petitioner that Respondent violated MLRPC 3.3 and 8.4 and, consequently,
 suspend Respondent from practicing law indefinitely with the right to apply for
 reinstatement no sooner than six months after the suspension takes effect.
 I.
 A. The Hearing Judge’s Findings of Fact
 1. Background
 Respondent was admitted to the Maryland Bar in 1974. In 1979, after a five-year
 stint as an Assistant State’s Attorney, Respondent transitioned to private practice. On June
 4, 1990, Respondent was convicted of money laundering and transporting stolen goods,
 2
 United States v. Steinhorn, 927 F.2d 195, 196 (4th Cir. 1991), and subsequently, in
 September 1990, this Court suspended him from practicing law in Maryland. Thereafter,
 on February 1, 1994, following affirmance of his convictions,3 this Court disbarred
 Respondent by consent. Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Steinhorn, 333 Md. 580 (1994).
 In October 2007, this Court granted Respondent’s Petition for Reinstatement to the
 Maryland Bar. In re Reinstatement of Steinhorn, 401 Md. 698 (2007). Since his
 reinstatement, Respondent has handled exclusively debt collection cases, representing
 homeowner associations, small businesses, and bail bondsmen. In one such matter,
 Respondent assisted Kingswood in collecting past due condominium fees from several
 condominium unit owners.
 2. Respondent’s Court Filings
 As part of his work for Kingswood, Respondent filed two form complaints—entitled
 DC-CV-001, Complaint/Application and Affidavit in Support of Judgment—with the
 District Court of Maryland sitting in Baltimore County in 2014. The first complaint, filed
 on January 14, 2014, sought to recover $9,120 in delinquent condominium fees from
 Aileen Pratt, a condominium unit owner. The second complaint, filed on April 2, 2014,
 also sought to collect $9,120 in outstanding condominium fees from Jason Green, another
 condominium unit owner. Respondent submitted affidavits in support of those claims,
 3
 Respondent’s convictions were affirmed in an unpublished decision, see United
 States v. Steinhorn, 946 F.2d 888 (4th Cir. 1991), and his request for post-conviction relief
 was subsequently denied in an unpublished decision, see United States v. Steinhorn, 986
 F.2d 1416 (4th Cir. 1993).
 3
 which were signed by Marc Greenberg (“Greenberg”), an agent of Kingswood. Greenberg
 relied on Respondent’s representations about the accuracy of those filings.
 The $9,120 figure listed on both complaints represented unpaid condominium fees
 for a four-year period (2011-2014) plus Respondent’s thirty-percent attorney’s fee.4 In
 other words, of the $9,120 sought in the complaints, $6,912 was for the outstanding HOA
 fees and $2,208 was for attorney’s fees.5 Respondent conjoined the unpaid assessments
 ($6,912) with the agreed-upon attorney’s fees ($2,208) in each complaint filed with the
 court, listing one figure ($9,120) in the damages line, leaving the line designated for
 attorney’s fees blank (see image below).
 4
 The math indicates that Respondent’s fees were closer to thirty-two percent of the
 total amount recovered, not the thirty percent he indicated in his testimony.
 5
 The hearing judge’s findings note that Respondent “determined the monthly
 amounts due from the debtor to be $144 and that his agreed attorney’s fee was $46,
 calculated at 30% of the amount recovered. Each of the complaints filed on behalf of
 Kingswood failed to state these damage amounts separately, instead claiming an aggregate
 of $190 per month in damages.” The figures discussed above illustrate the aggregate of
 these monthly assessments over the four-year delinquency period to demonstrate how the
 $9,120 figure was calculated.
 4
 3. The Complaint to the Attorney Grievance Commission
 In 2016, Kingswood terminated Respondent’s representation and replaced him with
 Brian Fellner, Esq. (“Fellner”). Fellner discovered that Respondent did not timely remit
 several payments he collected for Kingswood. Fellner then filed a complaint with
 Petitioner, alleging that Respondent’s delay was unwarranted. Bar Counsel investigated
 and determined that Respondent was also inflating the amount of damages sought in his
 court filings, and that he failed to rectify the issue once it was called to his attention.
 Petitioner concluded that such conduct violated MLRPC 3.3 and 8.4, among other charged
 violations.6
 4. Respondent’s Testimony
 During the hearing on his conduct, Respondent “candidly admitted” that he made a
 mistake, and he “denied any intent to deceive the court.” He testified that he only sought
 to collect that which was rightfully owed to him based on his fee agreement with
 Kingswood.
 The hearing judge found, as a matter of fact, that Respondent’s testimony was
 credible and that Respondent never intended to make a false statement to the District Court.
 The hearing judge was persuaded by the fact that Respondent did not personally benefit
 from his conduct. The judge was also swayed by Respondent’s sincere remorse and his
 implementation of new office procedures to prevent those issues from reoccurring.
 6
 See supra note 1.
 5
 B. The Hearing Judge’s Conclusions of Law
 Based on the record and the above-summarized findings of fact, the hearing judge
 concluded that Petitioner failed to demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, that
 Respondent violated MLRPC 3.3(a)(1) and 8.4 (a), (c), and (d). As noted at the outset,
 Petitioner has filed exceptions to the hearing judge’s conclusions of law.
 II.
 Standard of Review
 “In attorney discipline proceedings, this Court has original and complete jurisdiction
 and conducts an independent review of the record.” Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Good,
 445 Md. 490, 512 (2015) (citation omitted). Where, as here, neither party has filed
 exceptions to the hearing judge’s findings of fact, we treat those facts as established.
 Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Reno, 436 Md. 504, 508 (2014); see also Md. Rule 19-
 741(b)(2)(A). We review de novo the hearing judge’s legal conclusions, Md. Rule 19-
 741(b)(1), to determine if they are supported by clear and convincing evidence, Md. Rule
 19-727(c), and we decide, if the attorney committed misconduct, the appropriate sanction.
 Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Butler, 456 Md. 227, 238 (2017).
 III.
 The Rule Violations
 Based upon our independent review of the record, we disagree with the hearing
 judge’s legal conclusions and hold that Respondent violated MLRPC 3.3(a)(1) and 8.4(a),
 (c), and (d).
 6
 MLRPC 3.3, Candor Toward the Tribunal 7
 MLRPC 3.3(a)(1) provides, in pertinent part, that a lawyer shall not “knowingly . . .
 make a false statement of fact . . . to a tribunal.” This duty is premised on the idea that
 “[e]very court has the right to rely upon an attorney to assist it in ascertaining the truth of
 the case before it.” Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Smith, 442 Md. 14, 34 (2015) (citation
 omitted). Therefore, “an attorney ‘must be candid at all times with a tribunal or inquiry
 board.’” Butler, 456 Md. at 238 (quoting Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Joseph, 422 Md.
 670, 699 (2011)). Accordingly, a lawyer violates MLRPC 3.3(a)(1) when he or she
 knowingly provides the court with false information, Smith, 442 Md. at 34 (citing Attorney
 Grievance Comm’n v. Ward, 394 Md. 1, 32 (2006)), or fails to correct any false information
 previously provided, Joseph, 422 Md. at 699.
 Petitioner excepts to the hearing judge’s conclusion that Respondent did not violate
 MLRPC 3.3(a)(1). Petitioner contends that the hearing judge applied an erroneous legal
 standard in concluding that Respondent’s filings were not “knowingly false” because he
 had “no intent to deceive anyone” and no “party suffered any harm.” Respondent counters
 that he made an honest mistake, but the factual findings of the hearing judge compel the
 legal conclusion that he did not violate MLRPC 3.3(a)(1). We agree with Petitioner and
 therefore sustain its exception.
 As an initial matter, we reject Respondent’s assertion that we are compelled to
 uphold the hearing judge’s legal conclusions because we have accepted his factual findings
 7
 MLRPC 3.3 is now codified at Maryland Rule 19-303.3.
 7
 as established. According to Respondent, the only legal conclusion that can be reached
 from the hearing judge’s “exculpatory” factual findings is that Respondent did not violate
 MLRPC 3.3. Respondent is mistaken. His assertion runs counter to the well-established
 standard of review in attorney grievance proceedings.
 As part of our independent review of the record, we are free to reach different legal
 conclusions than those of the hearing judge, even if we accept the judge’s factual findings.
 See Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Patterson, 421 Md. 708, 724 (2011) (noting that we
 afford no deference to a hearing judge’s legal conclusions). In Attorney Grievance
 Commission v. Taylor, for example, the hearing judge found, and Bar Counsel did not
 contest, that Mr. Taylor never commingled or mishandled client funds deposited into his
 client trust account. 405 Md. 697, 707, 714 (2008). We concluded, however, that because
 he deposited “personal funds into the trust account in excess of the amount needed to cover
 bank charges,” Mr. Taylor violated MLRPC 1.15(b) (Safekeeping Property).8 Id. at 714.
 We therefore overturned the hearing judge’s legal conclusion and sanctioned Mr. Taylor,
 “notwithstanding the hearing judge’s finding that there was no . . . misuse of client funds.”
 Id. at 715. Likewise, here, our de novo review leads us to the conclusion that Respondent
 violated MLRPC 3.3(a)(1), notwithstanding the hearing judge’s finding that Respondent
 acted with no intent to deceive anyone.
 8
 MLRPC 1.15(b), now codified at Maryland Rule 19-301.15, provided, at the time
 of the Taylor decision, that “[a] lawyer may deposit the lawyer’s own funds in a client trust
 account for the sole purpose of paying bank service charges on that account, but only in an
 amount necessary for the purpose.” Taylor, 405 Md. at 714. The revised Maryland Rule
 19-301.15(b) refers readers to Maryland Rule 19-408(b) for the same proposition.
 8
 We need not look any further than Respondent’s testimony to reach this conclusion.
 Respondent testified that he reviewed each complaint to ensure its accuracy before filing
 it with the court. He further testified that he “knew what the attorney’s fees were,” that he
 “knew what the division was going to be subsequent to the payment of the judgment”
 ($6,912 for the debt and $2,208 for attorney’s fees), and that those figures “should have
 been separated.”9 (Emphasis added). Yet, despite this knowledge, Respondent did not
 separate those figures on the complaint forms he filed with the District Court, and he did
 not file corrected forms thereafter, even after this issue was called to his attention. It
 follows that Respondent knowingly submitted false information to the court—that the
 underlying debt was $9,120, when, in fact, it was only $6,912—which he failed ever to
 correct. Consequently, clear and convincing evidence demonstrates that Respondent
 violated MLRPC 3.3(a)(1).
 That the hearing judge found as a fact that Respondent did not intend to deceive the
 court, did not harm anyone, and did not benefit from this practice—findings that Bar
 Counsel has not excepted to and we thus adopt—is immaterial to our analysis. What
 matters for purposes of finding an MLRPC 3.3(a)(1) violation is whether an attorney knows
 that the information he or she presents to the tribunal is incorrect. Ward, 394 Md. at 32.
 9
 The instructions for the District Court complaint form specify that attorneys “need
 to indicate . . . whether [they] are claiming ‘attorney’s fees.’” Eliot M. Wagonheim, District
 Court of Maryland, Small Claims: How to File a Small Claim in the District Court of
 Maryland 12 (2016), https://perma.cc/CZN2-RQD9. Any reasonable attorney with over a
 decade of experience filing small claims with the District Court would know that attorney’s
 fees must be listed separately from the principal damages sought.
 9
 When it came to the accuracy of court filings in Respondent’s office, “the buck stop[ped]”
 with him,10 as he noted in his testimony; the blame therefore rests with him for the
 erroneous filings at issue here.11
 MLRPC 8.4, Misconduct 12
 1. MLRPC 8.4(c)
 MLRPC 8.4(c) states that “[i]t is professional misconduct for a lawyer to . . . engage
 in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.” This rule is grounded
 in the idea that “[h]onesty is of paramount importance in the practice of law.” Attorney
 Grievance Comm’n v. Agbaje, 438 Md. 695, 715 (2014) (citing Attorney Grievance
 Comm’n v. Ellison, 384 Md. 688 (2005)); see also Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Myers,
 333 Md. 440, 449 (1994) (“Candor and truthfulness are two of the most important moral
 character traits of a lawyer.”). We have held that, “in the context of Rule 8.4(c), so long
 as an attorney knowingly makes a false statement, he necessarily engages in conduct
 involving misrepresentation. No intent to deceive is necessary.” Attorney Grievance
 Comm’n v. Dore, 433 Md. 685, 708 (2013); see also Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Zhang,
 10
 The record indicates that Respondent’s work force is small, consisting primarily
 of family members, including his two sons, his wife, and a part-time secretary. It is unclear
 whether any of these individuals are attorneys, but Respondent’s testimony makes clear
 that he is responsible for approving all legal filings.
 11
 It is insignificant that Respondent has now implemented new office procedures
 designed to prevent this issue from arising again because, by his own admission, he never
 corrected either of the inaccurate complaints previously filed with the court, despite the
 continuing obligation to do so. See Joseph, 422 Md. at 699.
 12
 MLRPC 8.4 is now codified at Maryland Rule 19-308.4.
 10
 440 Md. 128, 168-69 (2014) (highlighting the difference between fraud and deceit, which
 require an intent to deceive, and dishonesty and misrepresentation, which do not require
 any specific intent).
 Petitioner excepts to the hearing judge’s conclusion that Respondent did not violate
 MLRPC 8.4(c). Petitioner asserts that the hearing judge erred in concluding that
 Respondent did not violate MLRPC 8.4(c) because his pleadings “never . . . disrupt[ed] . . .
 any court proceeding” and “no judge . . . ever objected” to his filings. Respondent again
 counters that the hearing judge’s finding that Respondent committed a genuine error but did
 not intend to deceive anyone necessarily means that he did not violate MLRPC 8.4(c). We
 again agree with Petitioner and therefore sustain its exception.
 There is significant overlap between MLRPC 3.3(a)(1) and 8.4(c). Dore, 433 Md.
 at 707. Indeed, “[a] lawyer that violates [MLRPC] 3.3(a) generally violates [MLRPC]
 8.4(c) as well.” Id. (quoting Douglas R. Richmond, The Ethics of Zealous Advocacy:
 Civility, Candor and Parlor Tricks, 34 Tex. Tech L. Rev. 3, 28 (2002)). This overlap
 occurs because both rules are violated when a lawyer—regardless of intent—knowingly
 makes a false statement to the court. Id. at 708; see also Attorney Grievance Comm’n v.
 Framm, 449 Md. 620, 662 (2016). Because we have concluded that Respondent knowingly
 submitted false statements to the court, we similarly conclude that such submissions
 violated MLRPC 8.4(c).
 We nevertheless address the significance of Respondent’s misrepresentations
 independent of his lack of candor towards the tribunal because there are instances where
 an attorney may engage in misleading conduct, in violation of MLRPC 8.4(c), that is not
 11
 necessarily dishonest conduct, in violation of 3.3(a)(1).13 See Attorney Grievance Comm’n
 v. Nwadike, 416 Md. 180, 194 (2010) (citing Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Calhoun, 391
 Md. 532, 548 (2006)) (noting that an attorney can mislead “by silence and lack of
 communication[,]” in violation of MLRPC 8.4(c), without acting dishonestly). By
 grouping his attorney’s fees with the damages listed in his complaints, Respondent misled
 the court into believing that he was not collecting any attorney’s fees when the facts
 demonstrate otherwise. See In re Clark’s Case, 37 A.3d 327, 329, 331 (N.H. 2012) (finding
 a violation when an attorney “entered zeros . . . on the two [bankruptcy] forms instructing
 filers to enter . . . the debtor’s spouse’s income” because he “in effect [told] the court that
 [the debtor’s] husband had no income when . . . he did”). In other words, Respondent
 concealed the material fact that he was collecting attorney’s fees, thereby preventing the
 court from assessing the reasonableness of those fees.
 We have long held that concealment of material facts constitutes an MLRPC 8.4(c)
 violation. See Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Barton, 442 Md. 91, 142 (2015) (citation
 omitted) (“[w]e have found a [MLRPC] 8.4(c) violation when a misrepresentation is . . .
 based upon a concealment of material facts.”); see also Attorney Grievance Comm’n v.
 13
 The MLRPC inherently envisions a difference between dishonesty and
 misrepresentation, as MLRPC 8.4(c), for example, lists the two as separate ways to commit
 misconduct. Here, Respondent committed an affirmative dishonest act by listing $9,120
 as the total debt owed, when he knew only $6,912 was due as debt, which violated MLRPC
 3.3(a)(1) and 8.4(c); however, he also misled the court through silence, rather than an
 affirmative falsity, by not indicating his intention to collect attorney’s fees, which
 constitutes a distinct violation of MLRPC 8.4(c). It is true that “[t]here are circumstances
 where failure to make a disclosure” can violate MLRPC 3.3(a)(1), cmt. 3 to MLRPC 3.3,
 but those tend to involve situations where an attorney makes intentional misrepresentations
 to the court to achieve a specific outcome. See, e.g., Framm, 449 Md. at 659.
 12
 Robaton, 411 Md. 415, 428 (2009) (holding that an attorney violated MLRPC 8.4(c) by
 failing to disclose a debtor’s payment to a non-attorney professional on a bankruptcy form
 submitted to the court). Accordingly, we hold that when a lawyer, like Respondent, files a
 complaint and conceals his or her intent to collect attorney’s fees by joining them together
 with the damages sought, listing one aggregate amount due, that lawyer commits
 misconduct.
 2. MLRPC 8.4(d)
 In light of the above, we have no difficulty sustaining Petitioner’s final exception,
 and therefore conclude that Respondent also violated MLRPC 8.4(d). MLRPC 8.4(d)
 provides that “[i]t is professional misconduct for a lawyer to . . . engage in conduct that is
 prejudicial to the administration of justice.” Prejudice to the administration of justice may
 “be measured by the practical implications the attorney’s conduct has on the day-to-day
 operation of our court system.” Dore, 433 Md. at 710. Thus, we have held that depriving
 the court of knowledge and, in turn, the ability to act upon that knowledge is a violation of
 MLRPC 8.4(d). See Robaton, 411 Md. at 429 (holding that an attorney violated MLRPC
 8.4(d) by failing to inform the court that a bankruptcy debtor was paying the attorney,
 which “deprived the court and trustee of the knowledge that the debtor was being assisted
 by counsel,” thus preventing “the court and creditors of the ability to find out how much
 of the debtor’s assets ha[d] been paid to the attorney”).
 13
 Here, Respondent failed to inform the court that he was collecting attorney’s fees.14
 Through his omissions, Respondent deprived the court of the ability to evaluate the
 reasonableness of his fees, an essential judicial oversight function. See Cohn v. Bd. of
 Prof’l Responsibility, 151 S.W.3d 473, 489 (Tenn. 2004) (“[b]y filing for attorney’s fees
 using a method that avoided, almost entirely, the scrutiny of the court, [respondent]
 eviscerated . . . [essential] judicial oversight functions.”), superseded by statute, Tenn. Sup.
 Ct. R. 9, § 1.3, as recognized in Hughes v. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility, 259 S.W.3d 631,
 638 (Tenn. 2008). Respondent also failed to submit any supporting documentation
 justifying the reasonableness of the fees sought, in contravention of the Maryland Rules.
 See Md. Rule 3-306(c)(4)(C); Md. Rule 3-741(d)(2).15 Such conduct is prejudicial to the
 administration of justice, in violation of MLRPC 8.4(d). Robaton, 411 Md. at 429.
 Respondent stresses that no District Court judge ever objected to his filings.
 Respondent is correct that, technically speaking, no objections were ever made, but that is
 not because the District Court judges approved of or overlooked Respondent’s conduct; on
 the contrary, it is because those judges were unaware of what was occurring since
 Respondent’s complaints, on their face, concealed the material fact that he was collecting
 14
 Notably, none of the filings that Respondent submitted to the court (e.g., the
 complaints, statements of fees due, and requests for garnishment on wages) as part of his
 debt collection work for Kingswood included any information about Respondent’s
 intentions to collect attorney’s fees.
 15
 Maryland Rule 3-306(c)(4)(C), for example, requires a plaintiff’s attorney
 seeking attorney’s fees to demonstrate entitlement to and the reasonableness of those fees.
 Similarly, Maryland Rule 3-741(d)(2) requires an attorney to provide evidence supporting
 the right to any fees sought in judgment on affidavit proceedings. These rules are designed
 to assist the court in assessing the reasonableness of attorney’s fees given the risk for abuse.
 14
 attorney’s fees. Respondent’s conduct thus engendered disrespect for the court,
 constituting further evidence of his misconduct. See Attorney Grievance Comm’n v.
 Brigerman, 441 Md. 23, 40 (2014) (quoting Agbaje, 438 Md. at 717) (“‘Conduct which is
 likely to . . . engender disrespect for the court is conduct prejudicial to the administration
 of justice.’”).
 3. MLRPC 8.4(a)
 MLRPC 8.4(a) provides, in relevant part, that “[i]t is professional misconduct for a
 lawyer to . . . violate . . . the Maryland Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct.” Put
 simply, when an attorney violates any of the MLRPC, that attorney also violates MLRPC
 8.4(a). Framm, 449 Md. at 664. Because we have held that Respondent violated multiple
 provisions of the MLRPC, Respondent necessarily also violated MLRPC 8.4(a). Butler,
 456 Md. at 242.
 IV.
 Aggravating and Mitigating Factors
 Having determined that Respondent committed misconduct, we next address the
 presence of any mitigating or aggravating factors. A weighing of “the attorney’s
 misconduct against any existing mitigating and aggravating factors” is essential to
 determining the proper sanction. Framm, 449 Md. at 665 (quoting Attorney Grievance
 Comm’n v. Coppola, 419 Md. 370, 405 (2011)). Bar Counsel bears the burden of proving
 the “existence of aggravating factors . . . by clear and convincing evidence.” Attorney
 Grievance Comm’n v. Lang, 461 Md. 1, 27-28 (2018) (first citing Md. Rule 19-727(c); and
 then citing Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Eckel, 443 Md. 75, 85 n.5 (2015)). The charged
 15
 attorney “must show the presence of mitigating circumstances by a preponderance of the
 evidence.” Id. at 27 (citing Joseph, 422 Md. at 695).
 1. Aggravating Factors
 The hearing judge found several aggravating factors: Respondent’s prior
 disciplinary record, his extensive experience practicing law, and his use of the improper
 filing method in more than one case.16 Respondent takes no issue with those findings,
 presumably because he believes he did not violate the MLRPC. Petitioner asks us to find
 the presence of additional aggravating factors, including a dishonest motive, a pattern of
 misconduct, and a refusal by Respondent to acknowledge the wrongful nature of his
 conduct. See Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Sperling, 434 Md. 658, 676 (2013). We
 decline to so.
 Petitioner has failed to satisfy its burden of proof regarding the existence of
 additional aggravating factors. We defer to the hearing judge’s credibility finding that
 Respondent had no intent to deceive, Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Tanko, 427 Md. 15,
 55 (2012), and therefore we decline to conclude that he exhibited a dishonest motive,
 particularly given that he procured no pecuniary benefit from his misconduct. See Attorney
 Grievance Comm’n v. Stinson, 428 Md. 147, 195 (2012) (finding a dishonest and selfish
 16
 We note that because the hearing judge concluded that Respondent did not
 commit any MLRPC violations, “it was not necessary for the hearing judge to make
 findings of fact relevant to aggravating factors.” Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Dyer, 453
 Md. 585, 657-58 (2017). However, because we have concluded that Respondent
 committed violations of the MLRPC, we rely on the hearing judge’s aggravation and
 mitigation findings to determine the appropriate sanction.
 16
 motive because respondent retained unearned fees and double billed her client). We
 likewise cannot find that Respondent engaged in a pattern of misconduct because Petitioner
 has only presented us with two problematic complaints filed within a short time span.
 Despite Respondent’s allusions during his testimony that he used the impermissible filing
 method in other cases, Petitioner has not proven that Respondent committed a series of
 violations over time.17 Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Sperling, 459 Md. 194, 276 (2018);
 see also Coppola, 419 Md. at 406. And finally, the hearing judge’s factual determination
 that Respondent demonstrated sincere remorse is not clearly erroneous.18 Sperling, 459
 Md. at 276 (stating that the hearing judge is “in the best position to assess” remorse). This
 is not a case in which the charged attorney outright refused to acknowledge any
 wrongdoing or expressed remorse solely for purposes of damage control. See, e.g.,
 Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Sperling, 432 Md. 471, 497 (2013); Stinson, 428 Md. at
 195; Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Pennington, 387 Md. 565, 597 (2005).
 2. Mitigating Factors
 The hearing judge also found several mitigating factors: Respondent did not profit
 from his conduct, no client suffered any harm, no court proceeding was ever disrupted,
 17
 Petitioner argues that Respondent engaged in a pattern of misconduct; yet,
 Petitioner only submitted two problematic filings into the record. Thus, any reference to
 other potential improper filings are “not a part of the record before [us],” and therefore,
 “we will not address such matters.” Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Vanderlinde, 364 Md.
 376, 381 n.1 (2001).
 18
 During his testimony, Respondent expressed regret for the erroneous filings,
 stating, “I’m just totally ashamed that I’m here for myself and my family. . . . I should not
 have agreed that [the fees] be presented to the court that way. . . . I [made] a mistake.”
 17
 Respondent acted timely to cure his wrongs, and Respondent implemented new office
 procedures to prevent future problems. Petitioner, citing Attorney Grievance Comm’n v.
 Shuler, 443 Md. 494, 507 (2015), excepts to the findings that Respondent did not profit
 from his conduct and that no court proceeding was ever disrupted, arguing that these
 findings “do not constitute mitigation . . . under the applicable case law.”19 We disagree.
 Respondent has satisfied his burden of proof regarding the hearing judge’s
 mitigation findings. A hearing judge has discretion to decide which mitigation factors are
 applicable based on the testimony before that judge, see Attorney Grievance Comm’n v.
 Guida, 391 Md. 33, 50 (2006), so long as those findings are “within the realm of
 permissible mitigating factors,” Sperling, 459 Md. at 278 (citing Shuler, 443 Md. at 507).
 Here, the fact that Respondent did not profit from his conduct and that no court proceeding
 was ever disrupted “are within [that permissible] realm,” id., even though such factors are
 not explicitly enumerated in our case law. See Lang, 461 Md. at 72 (sustaining Mr. Lang’s
 exception to the hearing judge’s failure to find that “his actions lacked any moral
 turpitude[,]” even though such a factor is not technically “a mitigating factor we
 recognize”).
 19
 In Shuler, we provided a list of fourteen mitigating factors. 443 Md. at 507.
 Petitioner claims that because two of the hearing judge’s mitigation findings (that
 Respondent did not profit from his misconduct and that no court proceedings were ever
 disrupted) are not explicitly included in that list, those findings should not be considered
 as mitigating factors in this case. Petitioner essentially treats our list in Shuler as
 exhaustive. We reject such a rigid interpretation of our case law. We have long held that
 the list of mitigating factors is “non-exhaustive.” See, e.g., Attorney Grievance Comm’n
 v. Sheridan, 357 Md. 1, 31 (1999); Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Stolarz, 379 Md. 387,
 405 (2004).
 18
 V.
 The Sanction
 Finally, we turn to the appropriate sanction for Respondent’s misconduct. Because
 “the purpose of attorney discipline is to protect the public, not punish the attorney[,]”
 Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Mixter, 441 Md. 416, 527 (2015), “we aim to impose a
 sanction ‘commensurate with the nature and gravity of the violations and the intent with
 which they were committed,’” Framm, 449 Md. at 665 (quoting Good, 445 Md. at 513).
 We have imposed a range of sanctions for dishonest and deceitful conduct, from
 reprimand to disbarment, with a suspension (be it definite or indefinite) falling somewhere
 between the two. See Myers, 333 Md. at 449-50; Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Litman,
 440 Md. 205, 219 (2014). Our precedent indicates that disbarment is warranted, typically
 as a matter of course, when an attorney is “willfully dishonest for personal gain.” Myers,
 333 Md. at 449 (citation omitted). In contrast, a reprimand may be appropriate when,
 among other reasons, there is no specific intent and the charged attorney either is a
 neophyte who expeditiously admits to misconduct, Attorney Grievance Comm’n v.
 Maxwell, 307 Md. 600, 604 (1986), or lacks a disciplinary record, Attorney Grievance
 Comm’n v. Paul, 423 Md. 268, 293 (2011). Ultimately, however, “‘[t]he appropriate
 sanction depends on the facts and circumstances of the case before us.’” Attorney
 Grievance Comm’n v. Sweitzer, 452 Md. 26, 43 (2017) (quoting Attorney Grievance
 Comm’n v. Levin, 438 Md. 211, 228 (2014)).
 Here, neither disbarment nor a reprimand is suitable. On the one hand, Respondent
 did not exhibit a specific intent to deceive. He knowingly submitted inaccurate information
 19
 to the court, but he did not purposefully do so for personal gain, and no client or the court
 suffered any palpable harm, rendering disbarment unsuitable. See Tanko, 427 Md. at 55
 (“It is the absence of a specific intent to deceive, inherently dishonest conduct, and selfish
 motive that spares Respondent from the ultimate sanction of disbarment[.]”). On the other
 hand, Respondent is an experienced attorney, with a prior disbarment. Further, in the
 present disciplinary action, we have concluded that Respondent committed serious
 violations of the MLRPC, rendering a reprimand inadequate. See Attorney Grievance
 Comm’n v. Gordon, 413 Md. 46, 63 (2010) (holding that “misrepresentations to the court
 in violation of [MLRPC] 3.3(a)(1) . . . and 8.4(c)” warrant a sanction greater than a
 reprimand); Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Cassidy, 362 Md. 689, 700 (2001) (“when we
 consider Respondent’s conduct in light of his prior disciplinary history, it is clear that, to
 protect the public, an increase in the degree of discipline beyond that of a reprimand is
 necessary”); Maxwell, 307 Md. at 604.
 Thus, we hold that an indefinite suspension from the practice of law is the
 appropriate sanction to be imposed in this case. See Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Tun,
 428 Md. 235, 246 (2012) (stating that intentional dishonest misconduct warrants
 disbarment, while unintentional or negligent misconduct usually warrants an indefinite
 suspension); Litman, 440 Md. at 219 (“Disbarment for misleading . . . a tribunal may be
 the correct sanction in many situations. In some cases . . . an indefinite suspension is more
 appropriate.”). We are informed by our decisions in Attorney Grievance Comm’n v.
 Poverman, 440 Md. 588 (2014) and Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Robaton, 411 Md. 415
 20
 (2009).20 In Poverman, a reciprocal disciplinary case, we imposed an indefinite suspension
 upon an attorney who falsely certified on his annual registration statement to the Delaware
 Bar that there were no disciplinary charges pending against him. 440 Md. at 592, 595, 607.
 In imposing the sanction, we balanced the severity of Poverman’s misconduct—a knowing
 misrepresentation to an authoritative body—and his substantial experience practicing law
 with the fact that no clients or investors were ever harmed. Id. at 606-08. Similarly, in
 Robaton, we imposed an indefinite suspension upon an attorney who failed to make
 mandatory disclosures on several bankruptcy forms filed on behalf of a client. 411 Md. at
 425-26. We stressed that although the misconduct “resulted from indifference, rather than
 from a selfish motive[,]” none of those facts negated the severity of the attorney’s
 misconduct and the need for a comparable sanction. Id. at 430-31.
 Respondent’s conduct here is akin to Poverman and Robaton. Although
 Respondent may not have acted with a selfish motive or harmed any client, neither negates
 the fact that he knowingly submitted false information to the court, which any reasonable
 attorney with his extensive experience handling debt collection matters would have known
 to avoid. See Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Hodes, 441 Md. 136, 208 (2014)
 (highlighting an attorney’s substantial experience in a specific field of law as the basis for
 a more severe sanction). Furthermore, unlike in Poverman and Robaton, Respondent’s
 20
 We have imposed indefinite suspensions upon other attorneys who knowingly
 misrepresented material facts. E.g., Litman, 440 Md. at 221; Attorney Grievance Comm’n
 v. Kepple, 432 Md. 214, 232 (2013); Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Harrington, 367 Md.
 36, 51 (2001); Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Cohen, 361 Md. 161, 179 (2000).
 21
 disciplinary record is severely blemished by his previous disbarment.21 Accordingly, the
 indefinite suspension we impose here will adequately protect the public by “send[ing] the
 message to the legal community and the public at large that this Court [will not tolerate]
 this type of conduct.” Dore, 433 Md. at 727. The suspension will begin thirty days after
 the filing date of this decision. Respondent will be eligible to apply for reinstatement no
 sooner than six months after his suspension takes effect. See Litman, 440 Md. at 220
 (stating that we typically require a six-month waiting period to apply for reinstatement after
 imposing an indefinite suspension for dishonest conduct).
 IT IS SO ORDERED; RESPONDENT
 SHALL PAY ALL COSTS AS TAXED BY
 THE CLERK OF THIS COURT,
 INCLUDING COSTS OF ALL
 TRANSCRIPTS, PURSUANT TO
 MARYLAND RULE 19-709(d), FOR
 WHICH SUM JUDGMENT IS ENTERED
 IN FAVOR OF THE ATTORNEY
 GRIEVANCE COMMISSION AGAINST
 NEIL WARREN STEINHORN.
 21
 Although we have imposed a ninety-day suspension on other attorneys who
 submitted similar false filings with the court, none of those attorneys had a prior discipline
 record. See Dore, 433 Md. at 720, 727; Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Geesing, 436 Md.
 56, 68, 71 (2013); Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Parsons, 310 Md. 132, 142-43 (1987).
 Here, Respondent was previously disbarred, a factor that “in and of itself” may provide
 grounds for disbarment, although we decline to impose such a sanction given the nature of
 Respondent’s misconduct and the mitigating factors discussed supra. See Attorney
 Grievance Comm’n v. Shakir, 427 Md. 197, 208 (2012) (“A history of MLRPC violations
 may provide justification for disbarment in and of itself[.]”); Attorney Grievance Comm’n
 v. Harris, 371 Md. 510, 556-57 (2002) (emphasizing the need to impose a severe sanction,
 an indefinite suspension, due to the attorney’s prior discipline history, while stressing that
 disbarment was not warranted because the attorney’s personal circumstances, his
 preoccupation with the death of his mother and mother-in-law, mitigated his misconduct).
 22


type: caselaw

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 7.2.2009
 MT
 Il-Ġurnal Uffiċjali tal-Unjoni Ewropea
 C 32/4
 Sentenza tal-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja (L-Ewwel Awla) tal-11 ta' Diċembru 2008 — Il-Kummissjoni tal-Komunitajiet Ewropej vs Département du Loiret, Scott SA
 (Kawża C-295/07 P) (1)
 (Appell - Għajnuna mill-Istat - Prezz preferenzjali ta' art - Deċiżjoni tal-Kummissjoni - Irkupru ta' għajnuna inkompatibbli mas-suq komuni - Valur attwali tal-għajnuna - Rata ta' imgħax komposta - Nuqqas ta' motivazzjoni - Annullament totali - Ammissibilità)
 (2009/C 32/07)
 Lingwa tal-kawża: Il-Franċiż
 Partijiet
 Appellanti: Il-Kummissjoni tal-Komunitajiet Ewropej (rappreżentant: J. Flett, aġent)
 Appellati: Département du Loiret, Scott SA (rappreżentanti: J. Lever QC, J. Gardner, Barrister u G. Peretz, Barristers, R. Griffith u M. Papadakis, solicitors]
 Suġġett
 Appell ippreżentat kontra s-sentenza tal-Qorti tal-Prim'Istanza (L-Ewwel Awla) tad-29 ta' Marzu 2007, Département du Loiret vs Il-Kummissjoni (T-369/00), li permezz tagħha l-Qorti tal-Prim'Istanza annullat id-Deċiżjoni tal-Kummissjoni 2002/14/KE, tat-12 ta' Lulju 2000, dwar l-għajnuna mill-Istat implementata minn Franza favur Scott Paper SA/Kimberly-Clark (ĠU 2002, L 12, p. 1), sa fejn din tirrigwarda l-għajnuna mogħtija taħt il-forma ta' prezz preferenzjali ta' art imsemmi fl-ewwel Artikolu tagħha — Metodu ta' kalkolu tal-imgħax dovut fuq l-ammonti riċevuti illegalment: rata ta' imgħax sempliċi jew komposta? — Motivazzjoni tal-għażla ta' dan il-metodu u qlib tal-oneru tal-prova — Mument li fih għandha tiġi evalwata l-eżistenza ta' vantaġġ illegali
 Dispożittiv
 1)
 Is-sentenza tal-Qorti tal-Prim'Istanza tal-Komunitajiet Ewropej tad-29 ta' Marzu 2007, Département du Loiret vs Il-Kummissjoni (T-369/00), hija annullata.
 2)
 Il-kawża hija rrinvijata quddiem il-Qorti tal-Prim'Istanza tal-Komunitajiet Ewropej.
 3)
 L-ispejjeż huma rriżervati.
 (1) ĠU C 211, 8.9.2007.


type: legislation

text:
COMISSÃO DAS COMUNIDADES EUROPEIAS
 C0M(91)143 final
 Bruxelas, 18 de Abril de 1991
 Proposta de
 REGULAMENTO (£££) QQ CONSELHO
 que altera os Regulamentos (CEE) no. 2340/90 e
 no. 3155/90 do Conselho, que Impedem as trocas
 comerciais da Comunidade no que diz respeito
 ao Iraque e ao Koweït
 (apresentada pela Comissão)
 ---pagebreak--- ---pagebreak--- EXPOSIÇÃO DOS MOTIVOS
 1. Pelos Regulamentos (CEE) no. 2340/90 do Conselho, com a última
 redacção que lhe foi dada pelo Regulamento (CEE) no. 811/91, e no.
 3155/90, com a redacção que lhe foi dada pelo Regulamento (CEE) ng_
 542/91 do Conselho, a Comunidade Instituiu um embargo sobre as trocas
 comerciais com o Iraque, em conformidade com as resoluções adoptadas
 pelo Conselho de Segurança das Nações Unidas na sequência da invasão
 e ocupação do Koweït pelas forças Iraquianas.
 2. Ao adoptar a Resolução no. 687 (1991), o Conselho de Segurança das
 Nações Unidas decidiu das condições de um cessar-fogo entre as forças
 do Iraque, por um lado, e as forças aliadas, por outro lado, bem como
 das modalidades de abolição do embargo sobre as trocas comerciais.
 3. Em conformidade com a Resolução no. 687 (1991) do Conselho de
 Segurança, a Comunidade deve alterar os regulamentos referidos no
 no. 1, para dar cumprimento aos pontos pertinentes da Resolução do
 Conselho de Segurança no. 687 (1991), relativa ao fornecimento de
 medicamentos, alimentos e produtos, bem como aos abastecimentos
 destinados a satisfazer as necessidades básicas da população civil.
 ---pagebreak--- RGULAMENTO DO CONSELHO (CEE) Ng
 de
 que altera os Regulamentos (CEE) no. 2340/90 e
 no. 3155/90 do Conselho, que Impedem as trocas
 comerciais da Comunidade no que diz respeito
 ao Iraque e ao Koweït
 0 CONSELHO DAS COMUNIDADES EUROPEIAS,
 Considerando que, pelos Regulamentos (CEE) no. 2340/90 ( 1 ) , com a última
 redacção que lhe foi dada pelo Regulamento (CEE) no. 811/91 ( 2 ) , e no.
 3155/90(3), com a última redacção que lhe foi dada pelo Regulamento
 (CEE) no. 542/91( 4 ^, foram Impedidas as trocas comerciais entre a
 Comunidade Económica Europeia, por um lado, e o Iraque, por outro lado,
 com algumas excepções, na sequência das resoluções do Conselho de
 Segurança das Nações Unidas que instituíram um embargo após a invasão do
 Koweït pelas forças iraquianas;
 Considerando a adopção, pelo Conselho de Segurança das Nações Unidas, da
 Resolução nû 687 (1991), em 3 de Abril de 1991;
 Considerando que a Comunidade e os seus Estados-membros, reunidos no
 âmbito da cooperação politica, consideram necessário alterar os
 Regulamentos (CEE) no. 2340/90 e no. 3155/90, tendo em vista Introduzir as
 alterações efectuadas pelo Conselho de Segurança no que diz respeito à
 proibição de venda ou fornecimento ao Iraque de bens ou produtos e à
 proibição de Importar bens e produtos originários do Iraque;
 (1) J0 no. L 213 de 09.08.1990, p. 1.
 (2) J0 no. L 82 de 28.03.1991, p. 50.
 (3) J0 no. L 304 de 01.11.1991, p. 1.
 (4) J0 no. L 60 de 07.03.1991, p. 5.
 7
 ---pagebreak--- 2 -
 Tendo em conta o Tratado que institui a Comunidade Económica Europeia e,
 nomedamente, o seu artigo 113g,
 Tendo em conta a proposta da Comissão,
 ADOPTOU 0 PRESENTE REGULAMENTO:
 Artigo 1g
 0 Regulamento (CEE) ng 2340/90 é alterado do seguinte modo:
 1. 0 Anexo é substituído pelo texto que consta do Anexo I do presente
 Regulamento.
 2. 0 artigo 3o_ passa a ter a seguinte redacção:
 "1. 0 disposto no ng 2 do artigo 1g e nos ngs 2 do artigo 2g não se
 aplica aos produtos enumerados no Anexo.
 2. 0 disposto no ng 1 do artIgo 1g e no ng 1 do artigo 2g não obsta
 á introdução no território da Comunidade:
 a) dos bens ou produtos referidos no ng 1 do artigo 1g,
 originários ou provenientes do Iraque ou do Koweït e
 exportados antes de 7 de Agosto de 1990,
 ou
 b) de bens e produtos originários do Iraque, cuja Importação
 tenha sido aprovada nos termos do disposto no ng 23 da
 Resolução ng 687 (1991), pelo Comité do Conselho de Segurança
 criado ao abrigo da Resolução ng 661 (1990) do Conselho de
 Segurança.
 A importação de bens e produtos nos termos da alínea b) será
 sujeita a uma autorização prévia a ser emitida pelas
 autoridades competentes dos Estados-membros.
 ---pagebreak--- - 3 -
 Ar 11 go 2g
 0 Regulamento (CEE) ng 3155/90 é alterado do seguinte modo:
 1. 0 Anexo I é substituído pelo texto que consta do Anexo II do presente
 Regulamento.
 2. É suprimido o artigo 5g.
 Art I go 3g
 0 disposto nos artigos 1g e 2g do presente regulamento é aplicável a
 partir de 3 de Abri I de 1991.
 Art I go 4g
 0 presente regulamento entra em vigor no dia da sua publicação no Jornal
 Oficial das Comunidades Europeias.
 0 presente regulamento é obrigatório em todos os seus elementos e
 directamente aplicável em todos os Estados-membros.
 Feito em Bruxelas,
 Pelo Conselho
 0 Presidente
 3
 ---pagebreak--- Anexo
 ANEXO
 LISTA DOS PRODUTOS REFERIDOS NO Ng 1 DO ARTIGO 3g
 A. Todos os produtos exclusivamente destinados a fins médicos.
 B. Os produtos alimentares notificados ao Comité instituído ao abrigo da
 Resolução ng 661 (1990) do Conselho de Segurança.
 C. Os produtos e abastecimentos destinados a satisfazer necessidades
 básicas da população civil aprovados pelo Comité do Conselho de
 Segurança acima referido, de acordo com o seu procedimento
 simplificado e acelerado de "não objecção", nos termos da Resolução
 ng 687 (1991).
 ---pagebreak--- Anexo
 ANEXO I
 1. Não obstante a existência de quaisquer direitos ou obrigações
 conferidos ou impostos por qualquer acordo Internacional ou contrato
 que tenham celebrado ou de quaisquer licenças ou autorizações
 concedidas antes da entrada em vigor do presente Regulamento, os
 Estados-membros deverão recusar autorização de descolagem do seu
 território, de qualquer aeronave que transporte para o Iraque ou
 deste pais qualquer carga à excepção dos produtos e abastecimentos
 referidos no Anexo ao Regulamento (CEE) ng 2340/90, do Conselho, ou
 de abastecimentos exclusivamente destinados a UNIIMOG.
 2. Os Estados-membros recusarão a autorização de sobrevoar o seu
 território a qualquer aeronave que tenha como destino o Iraque,
 independentemente do Estado de registo dessa aeronave, a não ser que:
 a) a aeronave em questão aterre num campo de aviação designado por
 esse Estado-membro, fora do Iraque, de modo a permitir a sua
 Inspecção tendo em vista assegurar que não transporta nenhum
 carregamento susceptível de violar a Resolução 661 (1990) ou a
 Resolução 670 (1990), podendo a aeronave ser, para esse efeito,
 retida todo o tempo necessário; ou
 b) que o vôo em causa tenha obtido a aprovação dos Comités criados
 pela Resolução ng 661 (1990); ou
 c) que o vôo em causa seja comprovadamente reconhecido pelas Nações
 Unidas como destinando-se exclusivamente aos objectivos da
 UNIIM0G.
 3. Os Estados-membros tomarão todas as medidas necessárias para
 assegurar que qualquer aeronave registada no seu território ou
 operada por um operador cujo principal local de actividade ou
 residência permanente se situe no seu território actue em
 conformidade com o disposto nas Resoluções ng 661 (1990), 670 (1990)
 e 687 (1991).
 •R
 ---pagebreak--- ---pagebreak--- ISSN 0257-9553
 COM(9í) 143 fina!
 PT 11
 N.° de catálogo : CB-CO-91-168-PT-C
 ISBN 92-77-71439-5
 PREÇO DE VENDA I até 30 t>ágina«í 3.50 ECU ! «HA Iflnámnas a m a k 1,25 ECU
 ..: i •: i _.
 Serviço das Publicações Oficiais das Comunidades Europeias
 L-2985 Luxemburgo


type: wikipedia

text:
Войводиново е село в Южна България. То се намира в община Марица, област Пловдив.
 География
 Село Войводивоно се намира в Горнотракийската низина на 2 км северно от град Пловдив на надморска височина 100 – 199 м. Площта на селото е 1305,7 ха.
 История
 Село Войводиново е създадено преди 350 години. Първоначално е съществувало в местността „Дим пара“, намираща се на около километър на юг от сегашното разположение на селото, и е изградено върху основите на старо римско селище. В района могат да бъдат намерени артефакти от римско време. През този район е минавал стар римски път, използван по-късно от Османската империя. По него е превозвана султанската хазна от Пловдив за Истанбул, многократно нападана от местни жители, предвождани от войводи. Многократните нападения на войводите дават името на селото и пак заради тях жителите на селището са прогонени от земите и принудени да се заселят на северозапад по бреговете на река Пясъчник. Постоянните наводнения, причинявани от реката, ги принуждават преди около 350 години отново да се преместят и заселят в земите, в които е разположено селото днес.
 Население
 Численост на населението според преброяванията през годините:
 Етнически състав
 Преброяване на населението през 2011 г.
 Численост и дял на етническите групи според преброяването на населението през 2011 г.:
 Обществени институции
 Първата църква на село Войводиново – „Свети Спас“ – се е намирала на мястото на сегашното читалище. Новата църква на настоящето си мястото е построена през 1932 г. и е с непроменено име.
 Първото училище във Войводиново – „Св. св. Кирил и Методий“ – е построено през 1879 г. То се е помещавало в една сграда с три стаи, разположена до съвременното училище. Сградата, в която се помещава днес, е построена през 1938 г., а последното разширение е направено през 1993 г. Основно училище „Св. св. Кирил и Методий“ е средищно училище и в него се учат около 150 деца от Войводиново и Желязно. През 2009 г. се празнуват 130 години от създаването му.
 Читалището в село Войводиново – „Виделина“ – е основано 1928 г. Настоящата сграда на читалището, което първоначално се е помещавало в частна кръчма, после в сградата на училището, е построена през 1932 г. с доброволен труд на жителите на селото. Читалищните дейци наброяват повече от 120 души. Техните колективи участват успешно в републикански и международни фолклорни фестивали. Читалището е наградено с орден „Кирил и Методий“ ІІ степен във връзка с 50-годишнината му. Към многото награди самодейците от Войводиново прибавят и златен лауреатски медал от международния фолклорен фестивал през 2006 г. в град Неделино. До читалището е построен паметник-чешма на войниците от селото, загинали в Балканската, Междусъюзническата, Първата и Втората световни войни.
 Културни и природни забележителности
 В землището на селото има седем тракийски могили. Преди около 45 години две от тях са разкопани от археолози и вътре са открити каменни саркофази и колесница от древни тракийски велможи.
 В северозападната част – на границата на регулацията на селото, се намира лековито изворче, наречено от местните „Кайнака“, чиято вода не е изследвана, но се счита, че лекува открити рани, проблеми със зрението, стомашно-чревни заболявания. Благодарение на дарения от жители и местни фирми до изворчето е построен православен параклис.
 В село Войводиново е построен паметник на Христо Ботев.
 Други
 Наличието на минерални извори с популярната трапезна вода на „Минерал аква“, която се изнася из почти цяла Европа и Арабския свят. Модерен спортен комплекс за състезания от световна величина по конен спорт с модерни конюшни и стадион за конни състезания. През 2004 година се проведе Балканиада по конен спорт с участието на седем балкански страни. Отстояние от магистрала Тракия е само един километър. Инвестициите в с. Войводиново са за над 120 милиона лева, като най-крупната е от порядъка на 45 милиона лева на фирма ЕСБИЕН с президент г-н Стоян Беширов за строителството на най-големия на Балканския полуостров завод за електроника, а именно производството на компютри и ДВД техника.
 На територията на село Войводиново се намира най-големият на Балканския полуостров стадион по конен спорт с конюшни за 160 коня и стадион-хиподрум с 5000 седящи места. На същия ежегодно се провеждат многобройни състезания от регионален и национален характер, кръг от Балканската купа по конен спорт и кръг от световната купа по конен спорт.
 Транспорт
 Много междуградски автобуси за Пловдив минават и спират в селото. Също така половината курсове на автобус No15 отиват до Войводиново.
 Галерия
 Източници
 Села в област Пловдив
 Населени места в община Марица


type: other

text:
2018 Suicídio no Brasil: reflexões a partir de um levantamento bibliográfico Gomes, Maria Paula Leite Monografia(Graduação)
 2018 O mito do amor e a permanência das mulheres em relacionamento abusivo: análise do filme 50 tons de cinza Nolasco, Giovanna Asevedo Artigo
 2018 Luto e melancolia: análise do filme “The Babadook” Araújo, Lídia Brito; Lima, Lorena Cristina de Artigo
 2018 Atuação do psicólogo da aviação militar das Forças Armadas do Brasil: revisão de literatura Nunes, Alice Vieira Artigo
 2018 Pornografia de vingança contra mulheres Carvalho, Nathália Batista Artigo
 2018 As tecnologias digitais e seus efeitos cognitivos, afetivos e sociais em adolescentes dependentes de internet Moura, Débora de Araújo; Avelar, Joelma Xavier da Silva Artigo
 2018 Aprendizagem de pessoas com deficiência intelectual no contexto da escola inclusiva Santos, Tatiane Fideles dos Artigo
 2 Gomes, Maria Paula Leite
 2 Santos, Luciana da Silva


text:
Leandro Jones Johan Bacuna (Groninga, Países Bajos, 21 de agosto de 1991) es un futbolista curazoleño. Juega como centrocampista en la y se encuentra sin equipo tras expirar su contrato con el Cardiff City F. C.
 Trayectoria
 FC Groningen
 El 30 de octubre de 2009 Bacuna debutó con el primer equipo del FC Groningen en la Eredivisie neerlandesa, en el partido contra el PSV Eindhoven. Leandro Bacuna anotó su primer gol en el primer equipo en un partido de Liga ante el Heracles Almelo. El Groningen ganó el partido 4-1.
 Aston Villa
 Se anunció el 13 de junio de 2013 que Leandro Bacuna había firmado un contrato de tres años en la Premier League inglesa con el Aston Villa. El 27 de julio de 2013 Bacuna marcó su primer gol con el Villa en un partido amistoso contra el Crewe Alexandra, un potente disparo desde 25 yardas, el partido terminó 5-1 a favor del Aston Villa. Marcó su primer gol en la Premier League para el Aston Villa el 28 de septiembre en casa ante el Manchester City, un tiro libre imparable en el minuto 73.
 Selección nacional
 Leandro Bacuna representó en 5 ocasiones la selección de fútbol de las Antillas Neerlandesas en el nivel sub-20 siendo llamado para el Campeonato Sub-20 de la Concacaf de 2009 donde marcó 3 goles con el combinado caribeño.
 Bacuna también fue convocado en los años 2009-2010 a la selección de fútbol sub-19 de los Países Bajos, obteniendo 10 apariciones y marcando un gol.
 El 22 de marzo de 2016, Leandro Bacuna recibe su primera convocatoria para la selección absoluta de , dirigida en ese entonces por Patrick Kluivert para disputar las eliminatorias a la Copa de Oro de la Concacaf 2017.
 Clubes
 Referencias
 Enlaces externos
 http://www.premierleague.com/en-gb/news/news/2013-14/aug/premier-league-squad-numbers-seasons-2013-14.html
 https://archive.is/20130222235543/www.vi.nl/Spelers/Speler.htm?employer=57&season=382&dbid=63150&typeofpage=84137
 https://web.archive.org/web/20091027031438/http://politiken.dk/sport/fodbold/article815651.ece
 https://web.archive.org/web/20130615161605/http://www.avfc.co.uk/page/NewsDetail/0%2C%2C10265~3209128%2C00.html
 Neerlandés-curazaleño
 Futbolistas de los Países Bajos
 Futbolistas de Curazao
 Futbolistas del FC Groningen
 Futbolistas del Aston Villa Football Club
 Futbolistas del Reading Football Club
 Futbolistas del Cardiff City Football Club
 Futbolistas de la selección de fútbol de Curazao
 Nacidos en Groninga
 Centrocampistas de fútbol
 Hermanos futbolistas


text:
Ayudantías | Facultad de ciencias económicas y estadísticas. U.N.R.
 ‹ Becas arriba Voluntariado ›
 La selección de los aspirantes se efectuará mediante una entrevista, a cargo del profesor titular o de quien éste designe. La fecha de la misma, fijada también por el profesor titular, será publicada con una anticipación no menor de 48 horas por la respectiva Escuela. Dicha entrevista versará sobre:
 Motivaciones del alumno;
 Grado de compromiso a asumir en lo atinente a sus posibilidades de asistencia, participación y cumplimiento de las labores a asignarse;
 Sus propias ideas en cuanto a su forma de participación y beneficios que estime proporcionará a sus compañeros.
 La entrevista deberá realizarse en la primera quincena de abril de cada año. La misma será pública. Dentro de los dos días posteriores a la entrevista, el profesor titular elevará un informe a la Escuela, la que en definitiva resolverá en un plazo no mayor de 48 horas sobre la aprobación o negativa fundada del informe del profesor titular.
 Publicidad y Designación
 El llamado pertinente, las fechas de las respectivas entrevistas y las posteriores designaciones deberán ser publicados únicamente en los transparentes de la Facultad por las respectivas Escuelas.
 El trámite íntegro, con la designación de los ayudantes alumnos, deberá quedar totalmente finiquitado el día 20 de abril de cada año.
 Asistir a no menos del 70 % de las clases;
 Concurrir a parciales y complementarios;
 Cumplimentar las tareas asignadas por el docente;
 Desarrollar actividades directamente relacionadas con las necesidades de los estudiantes;
 Participar en cursos y actividades que se organicen para formación del docente.
 Del docente a cargo:
 Facilitar el desempeño del ayudante alumno para las tareas asignadas;
 Brindar las posibilidades para su formación docente, tanto desde el punto de vista específico de la cátedra como en su aspecto general;
 Brindar al ayudante alumno el material en forma anticipada;
 Incorporar al ayudante alumno a las reuniones de cátedra y atender sus requerimientos sobre esclarecimiento o perfeccionamiento en lo que éste solicite;
 Elevar a la finalización del año académico un informe circunstanciado y fundado de evaluación del alumno, señalando en sus conclusiones finales, en su caso, su recomendación para la continuidad del alumno en la tarea. El informe del docente será evaluado por la Dirección de la Escuela y con su aprobación la designación quedará automáticamente renovada, a solicitud del alumno.
 Anualmente el informe de la Dirección de la Escuela será elevado al señor Decano a los fines de la pertinente certificación de las funciones desempeñadas por el ayudante alumno.
 Para más información dirigirse a la Escuela respectiva.
 Expediente No19955/11-F.C.E. y E.
 Rosario, 15 de mayo de 2012
 VISTO: Que por Resolución no 5446-C.D. de fecha 17 de febrero de 2008 se aprobó el Reglamento de Ayudantías Estudiantiles.
 Teniendo en cuenta el Proyecto presentado por los Consejeros Estudiantiles de la Agrupación Manuel Belgrano, modificando la referida Reglamentación
 La adhesión manifestada de dicho proyecto por la Escuela de Contabilidad, Escuela de Administración, Escuela de Estadística y Escuela de Economía, con las modificaciones sugeridas, y
 CONSIDERANDO: lo tratado en el seno de este Cuerpo
 DE LA FACULTAD DE CIENCIAS ECONOMICAS Y ESTADÍSTICA
 ARTÍCULO 1o- Dejar sin efecto la Resolución No 5446-C.D.de fecha 17-02-1998 y otra disposición que se oponga a la presente.
 ARTICULO 2o- Aprobar el “Reglamento de Ayudantías Estudiantiles” que en Anexos I, II, III y IV integran la presente Resolución.
 ARTÍCULO 3o- Comuníquese, cópiese y archívese.
 Normas generales para ayudantías estudiantiles
 ARTÍCULO 1: Las Ayudantías Estudiantiles tienen como objetivo:
 a) Iniciar a los alumnos en su formación en la docencia universitaria a través del apoyo a las funciones académicas de los docentes.
 b) Permitir a los ayudantes la obtención de experiencia y la profundización de los conocimientos en su área de interés.
 ARTÍCULO 2: Podrán presentarse como postulantes a las Ayudantías Estudiantiles aquellos alumnos de esta Facultad que tengan aprobadas como mínimo diez materias del plan de estudios, incluyendo aquella a la que aspiran.
 ARTÍCULO 3: El régimen de Ayudantías tendrá una duración cuatrimestral o anual en función de la carga horaria de la asignatura elegida, es decir un período completo de dictado. El período máximo de permanencia de un ayudante alumno en cada asignatura será de dos años. En cumplimiento de la ayudantía los aspirantes aceptados deberán:
 - Asistir al menos al 70% de las clases en cada período.
 - Concurrir a parciales y complementarios a solicitud del Profesor Titular.
 - Colaborar con el docente a cargo en las actividades académicas que éste le asigne, las que no deben incluir la evaluación de los alumnos que cursan dicha asignatura.
 - Participar en cursos y actividades que se organicen para la formación del docente.
 ARTÍCULO 4: Los docentes a cargo deberán cumplir las siguientes funciones:
 - Facilitar el desempeño del ayudante alumno para las tareas asignadas.
 - Brindar las posibilidades para su formación docente, tanto desde el punto de vista especifico de la asignatura como en su aspecto general.
 - Facilitar al ayudante alumno el material necesario para el desarrollo de las actividades académicas
 - Elevar a la finalización del curso un informe circunstanciado y fundado (modelo Anexo IV) de evaluación del alumno en cuanto a:
 1. asistencia a clase,
 2. interés manifestado,
 3. tareas desarrolladas,
 4. recomendación para la continuidad del alumno en la tarea,
 5. demás observaciones que el docente desee realizar.
 ARTÍCULO 5: Cada cátedra podrá tener hasta dos (2) ayudantes por cada profesor titular, asociado y/o adjunto que integre la misma. Excepcionalmente se podrá aceptar un número mayor de ayudantes alumnos previa fundamentación escrita del Profesor Titular de acuerdo a las necesidades específicas de la cátedra.
 ARTÍCULO 6: El alumno que haya cumplido con las obligaciones preestablecidas recibirá una constancia de la ayudantía realizada mediante una Resolución de Decano.
 Reglamentación de ayudantías estudiantiles
 ARTÍCULO 1: Los aspirantes deberán solicitar su inscripción en las respectivas Escuelas, certificando el cumplimiento de los requisitos establecidos.
 Las fechas de la inscripción serán:
 1. Segunda quincena del mes de febrero: para asignaturas anuales y cuatrimestrales que se dicten en el primer cuatrimestre
 2. Mes de julio: para asignaturas cuatrimestrales que se dictan en el segundo cuatrimestre.
 ARTÍCULO 2: Dentro de los cinco (5) días posteriores al cierre de la inscripción en las Escuelas, se girarán los antecedentes de cada aspirante a los Profesores Titulares de cada asignatura.
 ARTÍCULO 3: La selección de los aspirantes se efectuará mediante una entrevista y/o revisión de antecedentes y estará a cargo del profesor titular o de quien éste designe.
 Antes del inicio de las clases el Profesor Titular deberá informar a la Escuela respectiva sobre los ayudantes alumnos que haya aceptado.
 ARTÍCULO 4: El Profesor Titular, sobre la base de los aspirantes aceptados en cada cuatrimestre, asignará un docente responsable a cada uno de ellos, quien será el encargado de su orientación y seguimiento.
 ARTÍCULO 5: Finalizado cada período, las Escuelas elevarán a Secretaría Académica un detalle de los ayudantes que hubiesen cumplido con las disposiciones mencionadas en esta resolución, quien deberá a su vez elevarla al Decano a fin de la emisión de la resolución pertinente.
 ARTÍCULO 6: La renovación de la ayudantía estudiantil será automática siempre que:
 o no se haya excedido el plazo máximo de dos años,
 o el docente a cargo haya recomendado su continuidad,
 o el alumno haya expresado su consentimiento
 RESOLUCION No 20795-C.D.
 Actualizado el Sáb, 15/12/2012 - 09:22. Originalmente publicado por sec_estudiantil el 12/05/2012 - 20:53.


text:
NFL, Week 14 2018 : Green Bay Packers vs Atlanta Falcons - Football Américain et NFL
 NFL, Week 14 2018 : Green Bay Packers vs Atlanta Falcons
 Lambeau Field - le 09/12/2018 à 19h
 GB 7 13 14 0
 ATL 7 0 0 13
 Falcons vs. Packers highlights | Week 14
 Aaron Rodgers' best plays against the Falcons | Week 14
 TD J.Jones 16 yd. sur passe de M.Ryan (M.Bryant PAT ok) (7-75, 3:24)
 TD D.Adams 7 yd. sur passe de A.Rodgers (M.Crosby PAT ok) (9-75, 4:25)
 FG M.Crosby 50 yd. Field Goal (12-43, 6:02)
 TD B.Breeland 22 yd. sur relance d'interception (M.Crosby PAT ok)
 FG M.Crosby 48 yd. Field Goal (10-63, 2:45)
 TD R.Cobb 24 yd. sur passe de A.Rodgers (M.Crosby PAT ok) (6-72, 2:16)
 TD A.Jones 29 yd. à la course (M.Crosby PAT ok) (8-76, 4:38)
 TD J.Jones 12 yd. sur passe de M.Ryan (M.Bryant PAT ok) (11-68, 4:13)
 TD J.Hardy 19 yd. sur passe de M.Ryan (kick failed, wr) (10-54, 2:23)
 A. Rodgers 21/32 196 2 0
 A. Jones 17 78 1 29T
 A. Rodgers 3 44 0 21
 J. Williams 4 17 0 9
 D. Kizer 1 -1 0 -1
 D. Adams 7 81 1 22
 R. Cobb 5 43 1 24T
 A. Jones 3 28 0 15
 M. Valdes-Scantling 2 19 0 14
 J. Graham 2 13 0 8
 E. St. Brown 2 12 0 8
 J. Alexander 2 0 2 0
 B. Breeland 0 0 1 0
 J. Scott 4 38.8 0 57
 J. Moore 1 26 0 26
 J. Alexander 2 0 0 0
 M. Ryan 28/42 262 3 1
 I. Smith 11 60 0 17
 T. Coleman 10 45 0 13
 B. Hill 1 5 0 5
 M. Hall 1 -3 0 -3
 J. Jones 8 106 2 28
 M. Sanu 6 54 0 11
 A. Hooper 4 37 0 11
 J. Hardy 3 30 1 19T
 E. Saubert 2 15 0 8
 I. Smith 3 14 0 11
 C. Ridley 1 10 0 10
 T. Coleman 1 -4 0 -4
 M. Hall 1 0 1 0
 A. Mack 1 1 0 0
 M. Hall 5 22 0 29
 J. Hardy 1 14 0 14
 JA. Crawford 2-1 0.0 0 0
 Total Jeux (Course et Passe, sacks compris) 61 Total Jeux (Course et Passe, sacks compris) 68
 Gain Moyen par Jeu Offensif 4.9 Gain Moyen par Jeu Offensif 5.1
 Plaquage pour Perte (Nombre-Yards) 4--10 Plaquage pour Perte (Nombre-Yards) 3--7
 Sacks Subis (Nombre-Yards) 4 - 34 Sacks Subis (Nombre-Yards) 2 - 25
 Yards Totaux à la Passe 196 Yards Totaux à la Passe 262
 Gain Moyen par Jeu de Passe (Sacks compris) 4.5 Gain Moyen par Jeu de Passe (Sacks compris) 5.4
 Moyenne Nette des Punts 38.8 Moyenne Nette des Punts 50.0
 Retours de Punt (Nombre-Yards) 2 - 0 Retours de Punt (Nombre-Yards) 1 - 14
 Retours de Kickoff (Nombre-Yards) 1 - 26 Retours de Kickoff (Nombre-Yards) 5 - 112
 1-10-ATL 25 (15:00) 26-T.Coleman court côté tackle droit jusqu'aux ATL 30 pour 5 yards (94-D.Lowry; 50-B.Martinez).
 2-5-ATL 30 (14:21) (Shotgun) 2-M.Ryan passe longue à droite pour 11-J.Jones jusqu'aux GB 42 pour 28 yards (23-J.Alexander). Green Bay demande la REVISION VIDEO : passe complétée, et Décision confirmée. The ruling on the field stands. (Timeout #1.)
 1-10-GB 42 (13:56) 63-B.Garland reported in as eligible. PENALITE contre ATL-74-T.Sambrailo, False Start, 5 yards, appliquée depuis les GB 42 - Pas de Jeu.
 1-15-GB 47 (13:56) 2-M.Ryan passe longue à gauche pour 11-J.Jones poussé hors limites sur les GB 28 pour 19 yards (23-J.Alexander). Green Bay demande la REVISION VIDEO : passe complétée, et Décision confirmée. The ruling on the field stands. (Timeout #2.)
 1-10-GB 28 (13:37) 63-B.Garland reported in as eligible. 26-T.Coleman court côté gauche poussé hors limites sur les GB 23 pour 5 yards (37-J.Jackson).
 2-5-GB 23 (13:05) 17-M.Hall court côté gauche jusqu'aux GB 26 pour -3 yards (51-K.Fackrell).
 3-8-GB 26 (12:25) (Shotgun) 2-M.Ryan passe courte au centre pour 12-M.Sanu jusqu'aux GB 16 pour 10 yards (50-B.Martinez).
 1-10-GB 16 (11:43) (Shotgun) 2-M.Ryan passe courte à droite pour 11-J.Jones pour 16 yards, TOUCHDOWN.
 ATL 7 GB 0 Jeux : 7 Temps de possession : 3:24
 1-10-GB 25 (11:36) 12-A.Rodgers passe courte à droite pour 19-E.St. Brown jusqu'aux GB 33 pour 8 yards (21-D.Trufant, 44-V.Beasley).
 2-2-GB 33 (11:05) 12-A.Rodgers passe courte à gauche pour 19-E.St. Brown jusqu'aux GB 37 pour 4 yards (23-R.Alford).
 1-10-GB 37 (10:25) (Shotgun) 12-A.Rodgers passe courte au centre pour 18-R.Cobb jusqu'aux GB 45 pour 8 yards (29-J.Richards).
 2-2-GB 45 (9:50) 12-A.Rodgers passe courte à droite incomplète.
 3-2-GB 45 (9:41) (Shotgun) 12-A.Rodgers passe courte à droite pour 17-D.Adams jusqu'aux ATL 34 pour 21 yards (23-R.Alford).
 1-10-ATL 34 (9:07) 30-J.Williams court au centre jusqu'aux ATL 25 pour 9 yards (45-D.Jones).
 2-1-ATL 25 (8:27) 12-A.Rodgers passe courte à gauche pour 83-M.Valdes-Scantling poussé hors limites sur les ATL 11 pour 14 yards (23-R.Alford).
 1-10-ATL 11 (7:53) 30-J.Williams court côté gauche jusqu'aux ATL 13 pour -2 yards (95-JA.Crawford).
 2-12-ATL 13 (7:19) (Shotgun) 12-A.Rodgers passe courte au centre incomplète pour 83-M.Valdes-Scantling. PENALITE contre ATL-23-R.Alford, Interférence de passe défensive, 6 yards, appliquée depuis les ATL 13 - Pas de Jeu.
 1-7-ATL 7 (7:16) (Shotgun) 12-A.Rodgers passe courte à gauche pour 17-D.Adams pour 7 yards, TOUCHDOWN.
 ATL 7 GB 7 Jeux : 9 Temps de possession : 4:25
 Atlanta Falcons à 07:11
 2-M.Crosby botte 66 yards depuis GB 35 jusqu'aux ATL -1. 17-M.Hall jusqu'aux ATL 27 pour 28 yards (54-J.Crawford).
 1-10-ATL 27 (7:05) 2-M.Ryan passe courte au centre pour 11-J.Jones jusqu'aux ATL 33 pour 6 yards (23-J.Alexander).
 2-4-ATL 33 (6:28) 26-T.Coleman court côté droit jusqu'aux ATL 37 pour 4 yards (50-B.Martinez). GB-97-K.Clark blessé sur l'action.
 1-10-ATL 37 (5:57) 26-T.Coleman court au centre jusqu'aux 50 pour 13 yards (37-J.Jackson, 29-K.Brice).
 1-10- (5:27) 26-T.Coleman court côté tackle gauche jusqu'aux GB 48 pour 2 yards (94-D.Lowry).
 2-8-GB 48 (4:48) (Shotgun) 2-M.Ryan passe courte à droite pour 81-A.Hooper poussé hors limites sur les GB 37 pour 11 yards (27-J.Jones).
 1-10-GB 37 (4:11) (No Huddle) 25-I.Smith court côté gauche jusqu'aux GB 33 pour 4 yards (90-M.Adams).
 2-6-GB 33 (3:32) (No Huddle) 25-I.Smith court au centre jusqu'aux GB 29 pour 4 yards (23-J.Alexander).
 3-2-GB 29 (2:49) (Shotgun) 2-M.Ryan passe courte au centre pour 12-M.Sanu jusqu'aux GB 21 pour 8 yards (50-B.Martinez, 51-K.Fackrell).
 1-10-GB 21 (2:24) (No Huddle) 2-M.Ryan passe longue à droite incomplète pour 18-C.Ridley.
 2-10-GB 21 (2:18) 26-T.Coleman court côté gauche jusqu'aux GB 19 pour 2 yards (95-T.Lancaster).
 3-8-GB 19 (1:34) (Shotgun) 2-M.Ryan sacké à GB 26 pour -7 yards. FUMBLES, recovered par ATL-26-T.Coleman à GB 35. 26-T.Coleman jusqu'aux GB 35 pour 0 yard (23-J.Alexander).
 4-24-GB 35 (:42) 3-M.Bryant 53 yard Field Goal MANQUE, Short, Center-46-J.Condo, Holder-5-M.Bosher.
 Green Bay Packers à 00:41
 1-10-GB 43 (:41) (Shotgun) 12-A.Rodgers passe longue à gauche incomplète pour 18-R.Cobb.
 2-10-GB 43 (:36) (Shotgun) 12-A.Rodgers passe longue à droite incomplète pour 80-J.Graham (54-F.Oluokun).
 3-10-GB 43 (:26) (Shotgun) 12-A.Rodgers sacké à GB 33 pour -10 yards (21-D.Trufant).
 4-20-GB 33 (15:00) 6-J.Scott punte 45 yards jusqu'aux ATL 22, Center-43-H.Bradley, arrêt de volée de 14-J.Hardy.
 Atlanta Falcons à 14:52
 1-10-ATL 22 (14:52) 25-I.Smith court côté gauche jusqu'aux ATL 20 pour -2 yards (44-A.Morrison).
 2-12-ATL 20 (14:11) (Shotgun) 2-M.Ryan passe courte à gauche incomplète pour 18-C.Ridley.
 3-12-ATL 20 (14:07) (Shotgun) 2-M.Ryan passe courte à droite incomplète pour 18-C.Ridley.
 4-12-ATL 20 (14:01) 5-M.Bosher punte 55 yards jusqu'aux GB 25, Center-46-J.Condo, arrêté par ATL-36-K.Ishmael.
 Green Bay Packers à 13:47
 1-10-GB 25 (13:47) (Shotgun) 12-A.Rodgers passe courte à gauche incomplète pour 17-D.Adams (20-I.Oliver).
 2-10-GB 25 (13:44) (Shotgun) 12-A.Rodgers passe courte au centre pour 80-J.Graham jusqu'aux GB 33 pour 8 yards (20-I.Oliver).
 3-2-GB 33 (13:05) (Shotgun) 12-A.Rodgers court côté gauche jusqu'aux GB 40 pour 7 yards (95-JA.Crawford).
 1-10-GB 40 (12:28) 33-A.Jones court côté tackle gauche jusqu'aux GB 41 pour 1 yard (50-B.Reed; 56-S.Means).
 2-9-GB 41 (11:54) (Shotgun) 12-A.Rodgers passe longue à gauche pour 17-D.Adams poussé hors limites sur les ATL 37 pour 22 yards (20-I.Oliver).
 1-10-ATL 37 (11:17) 33-A.Jones court côté droit jusqu'aux ATL 33 pour 4 yards (45-D.Jones, 27-D.Kazee).
 2-6-ATL 33 (10:38) (Shotgun) 12-A.Rodgers passe courte à droite pour 83-M.Valdes-Scantling poussé hors limites sur les ATL 28 pour 5 yards (21-D.Trufant).
 3-1-ATL 28 (10:04) 33-A.Jones court côté tackle droit jusqu'aux ATL 26 pour 2 yards (27-D.Kazee, 41-S.Neasman).
 1-10-ATL 26 (9:23) (Shotgun) 12-A.Rodgers passe courte à gauche pour 17-D.Adams poussé hors limites sur les ATL 23 pour 3 yards (34-B.Poole).
 2-7-ATL 23 (8:36) 12-A.Rodgers passe courte à droite incomplète pour 19-E.St. Brown.
 3-7-ATL 23 (8:30) (Shotgun) 12-A.Rodgers sacké à ATL 32 pour -9 yards (59-D.Campbell).
 4-16-ATL 32 (7:45) 2-M.Crosby 50 yard field goal est OK, Center-43-H.Bradley, Holder-6-J.Scott.
 ATL 7 GB 10 Jeux : 12 Temps de possession : 6:02
 Atlanta Falcons à 07:45
 2-M.Crosby botte 64 yards depuis GB 35 jusqu'aux ATL 1. 17-M.Hall jusqu'aux ATL 1 pour 0 yard. FUMBLES, recouvert sur les ATL 4. 17-M.Hall jusqu'aux ATL 8 pour 4 yards (37-J.Jackson).
 1-10-ATL 8 (7:38) 2-M.Ryan passe courte au centre pour 14-J.Hardy jusqu'aux ATL 12 pour 4 yards (50-B.Martinez).
 2-6-ATL 12 (6:50) 63-B.Garland reported in as eligible. 26-T.Coleman court côté guard droit jusqu'aux ATL 14 pour 2 yards (26-B.Breeland).
 3-4-ATL 14 (6:08) (Shotgun) 2-M.Ryan passe courte tentée à droite pour 81-A.Hooper INTERCEPTE par 26-B.Breeland à ATL 22. 26-B.Breeland pour 22 yards, TOUCHDOWN.
 Atlanta Falcons à 06:01
 2-M.Crosby botte 65 yards depuis GB 35 jusqu'aux ATL 0. 17-M.Hall jusqu'aux ATL 29 pour 29 yards (82-J.Moore).
 1-10-ATL 29 (5:55) (Shotgun) 25-I.Smith court côté gauche jusqu'aux ATL 34 pour 5 yards (35-E.Pleasant).
 2-5-ATL 34 (5:17) 25-I.Smith court côté guard gauche jusqu'aux GB 49 pour 17 yards (51-K.Fackrell).
 1-10-GB 49 (4:46) (No Huddle) 25-I.Smith court au centre jusqu'aux GB 45 pour 4 yards (29-K.Brice).
 2-6-GB 45 (4:10) (No Huddle) 2-M.Ryan passe longue à gauche pour 11-J.Jones poussé hors limites sur les GB 13 pour 32 yards (23-J.Alexander). PENALITE contre ATL-71-W.Schweitzer, Holding Offensif, 10 yards, appliquée depuis les GB 45 - Pas de Jeu.
 2-16-ATL 45 (3:45) (Shotgun) 2-M.Ryan passe courte à gauche pour 26-T.Coleman jusqu'aux ATL 41 pour -4 yards (95-T.Lancaster).
 3-20-ATL 41 (3:02) (Shotgun) 2-M.Ryan passe longue au centre incomplète pour 17-M.Hall.
 4-20-ATL 41 (2:56) 5-M.Bosher punte 45 yards jusqu'aux GB 14, Center-46-J.Condo. 23-J.Alexander CAFOUILLE la réception, recouvert sur les GB 14. PENALITE contre GB-98-F.Brown, Holding Offensif, 7 yards, appliquée depuis les GB 14.
 1-10-GB 7 (2:45) 30-J.Williams court côté gauche jusqu'aux GB 12 pour 5 yards (94-D.Senat). PENALITE contre ATL-59-D.Campbell, Brutalité inutile, 15 yards, appliquée depuis les GB 12.
 1-10-GB 27 (2:18) (Shotgun) 12-A.Rodgers passe courte à gauche incomplète pour 30-J.Williams (45-D.Jones).
 2-10-GB 27 (2:12) (Shotgun) 12-A.Rodgers passe courte à droite pour 18-R.Cobb poussé hors limites sur les GB 31 pour 4 yards (21-D.Trufant).
 3-6-GB 31 (2:00) (Shotgun) 12-A.Rodgers court côté gauche jusqu'aux GB 47 pour 16 yards (34-B.Poole). PENALITE contre ATL-34-B.Poole, Illegal Contact, declined. PENALITE contre ATL-20-I.Oliver, Holding Défensif, 5 yards, appliquée depuis les GB 47.
 1-10-ATL 48 (1:50) (Shotgun) 12-A.Rodgers passe courte à droite pour 18-R.Cobb jusqu'aux ATL 44 pour 4 yards (20-I.Oliver).
 2-6-ATL 44 (1:23) (No Huddle, Shotgun) 12-A.Rodgers passe courte à gauche pour 17-D.Adams jusqu'aux ATL 36 pour 8 yards (34-B.Poole).
 1-10-ATL 36 (:51) (No Huddle, Shotgun) 12-A.Rodgers sacké à ATL 48 pour -12 yards (44-V.Beasley).
 Timeout #1 par ATL à 00:43.
 2-22-ATL 48 (:43) (Shotgun) 12-A.Rodgers court au centre jusqu'aux ATL 27 pour 21 yards (34-B.Poole). PENALITE contre GB-63-C.Linsley, Conduite anti-sportive, offsetting. PENALITE contre ATL-45-D.Jones, Conduite anti-sportive, offsetting.
 Timeout #2 par ATL à 00:26.
 3-1-ATL 27 (:26) (Shotgun) 12-A.Rodgers sacké à ATL 30 pour -3 yards (52-B.Irvin).
 4-4-ATL 30 (:04) 2-M.Crosby 48 yard field goal est OK, Center-43-H.Bradley, Holder-6-J.Scott.
 ATL 7 GB 20 Jeux : 10 Temps de possession : 2:45
 5-M.Bosher botte 63 yards depuis ATL 35 jusqu'aux GB 2. 82-J.Moore jusqu'aux GB 28 pour 26 yards (36-K.Ishmael).
 1-10-GB 28 (14:54) 33-A.Jones court côté droit jusqu'aux GB 36 pour 8 yards (45-D.Jones; 59-D.Campbell). PENALITE contre ATL-27-D.Kazee, Lowering the Head jusqu'aux Initiate Contact, 15 yards, appliquée depuis les GB 36.
 1-10-ATL 49 (14:33) (Shotgun) 12-A.Rodgers passe longue à droite incomplète pour 80-J.Graham. GB-64-J.McCray blessé sur l'action. PENALITE contre ATL-54-F.Oluokun, Holding Défensif, 5 yards, appliquée depuis les ATL 49 - Pas de Jeu.
 1-10-ATL 44 (14:26) 12-A.Rodgers passe courte au centre pour 33-A.Jones jusqu'aux ATL 30 pour 14 yards (59-D.Campbell).
 1-10-ATL 30 (13:44) 33-A.Jones court côté droit jusqu'aux ATL 29 pour 1 yard (95-JA.Crawford; 45-D.Jones).
 2-9-ATL 29 (13:05) (Shotgun) 12-A.Rodgers passe courte à droite incomplète [59-D.Campbell]. PENALITE contre ATL-45-D.Jones, Illegal Contact, 5 yards, appliquée depuis les ATL 29 - Pas de Jeu.
 1-10-ATL 24 (12:58) (Shotgun) 12-A.Rodgers passe courte à gauche incomplète pour 17-D.Adams.
 2-10-ATL 24 (12:55) 12-A.Rodgers passe longue à gauche incomplète pour 80-J.Graham.
 3-10-ATL 24 (12:49) (Shotgun) 12-A.Rodgers passe longue à gauche pour 18-R.Cobb pour 24 yards, TOUCHDOWN.
 ATL 7 GB 27 Jeux : 6 Temps de possession : 2:16
 Atlanta Falcons à 12:44
 2-M.Crosby botte 61 yards depuis GB 35 jusqu'aux ATL 4. 17-M.Hall jusqu'aux ATL 26 pour 22 yards (16-J.Kumerow, 35-E.Pleasant).
 1-10-ATL 26 (12:38) 26-T.Coleman court côté gauche jusqu'aux ATL 27 pour 1 yard (50-B.Martinez).
 2-9-ATL 27 (12:00) 26-T.Coleman court côté guard droit jusqu'aux ATL 34 pour 7 yards (28-T.Brown).
 3-2-ATL 34 (11:22) (No Huddle, Shotgun) 2-M.Ryan sacké à ATL 25 pour -9 yards (52-C.Matthews).
 4-11-ATL 25 (10:30) 5-M.Bosher punte 53 yards jusqu'aux GB 22, Center-46-J.Condo. 23-J.Alexander CAFOUILLE la réception, recouvert sur les GB 24. 23-J.Alexander jusqu'aux GB 24 pour 0 yard (83-R.Gage).
 1-10-GB 24 (10:29) 33-A.Jones court côté droit jusqu'aux GB 20 pour -4 yards (56-S.Means).
 2-14-GB 20 (9:48) (Shotgun) 12-A.Rodgers passe courte au centre incomplète pour 80-J.Graham (45-D.Jones).
 3-14-GB 20 (9:44) (Shotgun) 12-A.Rodgers passe longue au centre pour 17-D.Adams jusqu'aux GB 36 pour 16 yards (23-R.Alford).
 1-10-GB 36 (9:05) 12-A.Rodgers passe courte à gauche pour 33-A.Jones jusqu'aux GB 35 pour -1 yards (41-S.Neasman).
 2-11-GB 35 (8:23) (Shotgun) 12-A.Rodgers passe courte à droite pour 33-A.Jones jusqu'aux 50 pour 15 yards (27-D.Kazee) [95-JA.Crawford].
 1-10- (7:38) (Shotgun) 33-A.Jones court côté gauche jusqu'aux ATL 36 pour 14 yards (59-D.Campbell).
 1-10-ATL 36 (6:56) 33-A.Jones court côté droit jusqu'aux ATL 34 pour 2 yards (41-S.Neasman, 94-D.Senat).
 2-8-ATL 34 (6:17) PENALITE contre ATL-94-D.Senat, Encroachment, 5 yards, appliquée depuis les ATL 34 - Pas de Jeu.
 2-3-ATL 29 (5:57) 33-A.Jones court côté tackle droit pour 29 yards, TOUCHDOWN.
 ATL 7 GB 34 Jeux : 8 Temps de possession : 4:38
 2-M.Crosby botte 67 yards depuis GB 35 jusqu'aux ATL -2. 17-M.Hall poussé hors limites sur les ATL 24 pour 26 yards (25-W.Redmond).
 1-10-ATL 24 (5:46) 63-B.Garland reported in as eligible. 25-I.Smith court côté guard gauche jusqu'aux ATL 29 pour 5 yards (50-B.Martinez, 28-T.Brown).
 2-5-ATL 29 (5:19) 2-M.Ryan passe longue à gauche incomplète pour 11-J.Jones. PENALITE contre GB-37-J.Jackson, Holding Défensif, 5 yards, appliquée depuis les ATL 29 - Pas de Jeu.
 1-10-ATL 34 (5:13) 2-M.Ryan passe courte à droite incomplète pour 85-E.Saubert [52-C.Matthews].
 2-10-ATL 34 (5:07) 25-I.Smith court côté tackle droit jusqu'aux ATL 40 pour 6 yards (50-B.Martinez).
 3-4-ATL 40 (4:24) (Shotgun) 2-M.Ryan passe courte à droite pour 12-M.Sanu jusqu'aux GB 28 pour 32 yards (38-T.Williams). PENALITE contre ATL-70-J.Matthews, Holding Offensif, 10 yards, appliquée depuis les ATL 40 - Pas de Jeu.
 3-14-ATL 30 (4:01) (Shotgun) 2-M.Ryan passe longue à gauche incomplète pour 11-J.Jones.
 4-14-ATL 30 (3:55) 5-M.Bosher punte 47 yards jusqu'aux GB 23, Center-46-J.Condo, arrêt de volée de 18-R.Cobb.
 Green Bay Packers à 03:47
 1-10-GB 23 (3:47) PENALITE contre GB-89-M.Lewis, False Start, 5 yards, appliquée depuis les GB 23 - Pas de Jeu.
 1-15-GB 18 (3:47) (Shotgun) 12-A.Rodgers passe longue à gauche incomplète pour 17-D.Adams.
 2-15-GB 18 (3:43) 12-A.Rodgers passe courte à gauche pour 18-R.Cobb jusqu'aux GB 21 pour 3 yards (29-J.Richards).
 3-12-GB 21 (2:59) (No Huddle, Shotgun) 12-A.Rodgers passe courte à gauche incomplète pour 17-D.Adams.
 4-12-GB 21 (2:54) 6-J.Scott punte 47 yards jusqu'aux ATL 32, Center-43-H.Bradley, arrêt de volée de 14-J.Hardy.
 Atlanta Falcons à 02:47
 1-10-ATL 32 (2:47) (Shotgun) 2-M.Ryan passe courte au centre pour 11-J.Jones jusqu'aux ATL 40 pour 8 yards (23-J.Alexander).
 2-2-ATL 40 (2:23) (No Huddle) 26-T.Coleman court côté gauche jusqu'aux ATL 44 pour 4 yards (95-T.Lancaster).
 1-10-ATL 44 (1:44) (No Huddle) 2-M.Ryan passe courte au centre pour 85-E.Saubert jusqu'aux GB 49 pour 7 yards (50-B.Martinez).
 2-3-GB 49 (1:12) (No Huddle, Shotgun) 2-M.Ryan passe courte à droite pour 85-E.Saubert jusqu'aux GB 41 pour 8 yards (28-T.Brown; 27-J.Jones).
 1-10-GB 41 (:43) (No Huddle) 25-I.Smith court côté droit jusqu'aux GB 27 pour 14 yards (52-C.Matthews). PENALITE contre ATL-51-A.Mack, Holding Offensif, 10 yards, appliquée depuis les GB 29.
 1-8-GB 39 (:14) (Shotgun) 2-M.Ryan passe courte au centre incomplète pour 81-A.Hooper (37-J.Jackson).
 2-8-GB 39 (:09) (Shotgun) 25-I.Smith court côté droit jusqu'aux GB 32 pour 7 yards (50-B.Martinez).
 ATL 14 GB 34 Jeux : 11 Temps de possession : 4:13
 3-1-GB 32 (15:00) (Shotgun) 63-B.Garland reported in as eligible. 25-I.Smith court côté gauche jusqu'aux GB 34 pour -2 yards (52-C.Matthews).
 4-3-GB 34 (14:19) (Shotgun) 2-M.Ryan passe courte à droite pour 25-I.Smith poussé hors limites sur les GB 23 pour 11 yards (93-R.Gilbert).
 1-10-GB 23 (14:04) (No Huddle, Shotgun) 2-M.Ryan passe courte à gauche pour 12-M.Sanu jusqu'aux GB 12 pour 11 yards (23-J.Alexander).
 1-10-GB 12 (13:39) (No Huddle, Shotgun) 2-M.Ryan passe courte à gauche pour 11-J.Jones pour 12 yards, TOUCHDOWN.
 0-0-GB 15 3-M.Bryant extra point est OK, Center-46-J.Condo, Holder-5-M.Bosher.
 1-10-GB 25 (13:34) 33-A.Jones court côté guard droit jusqu'aux GB 26 pour 1 yard (54-F.Oluokun, 94-D.Senat).
 2-9-GB 26 (12:54) 33-A.Jones court côté gauche jusqu'aux GB 29 pour 3 yards (27-D.Kazee, 45-D.Jones).
 Timeout #1 par GB à 12:07.
 3-6-GB 29 (12:07) (Shotgun) 12-A.Rodgers passe courte à droite pour 17-D.Adams jusqu'aux ATL 41 pour 30 yards (21-D.Trufant). PENALITE contre GB-80-J.Graham, Interférence de passe offensive, 10 yards, appliquée depuis les GB 29 - Pas de Jeu.
 3-16-GB 19 (11:42) (Shotgun) PENALITE contre GB-33-A.Jones, False Start, 5 yards, appliquée depuis les GB 19 - Pas de Jeu.
 3-21-GB 14 (11:20) (Shotgun) 12-A.Rodgers passe courte à droite pour 17-D.Adams jusqu'aux GB 18 pour 4 yards (21-D.Trufant; 34-B.Poole).
 4-17-GB 18 (10:49) 6-J.Scott punte 57 yards jusqu'aux ATL 25, Center-43-H.Bradley. 14-J.Hardy jusqu'aux ATL 39 pour 14 yards (84-L.Kendricks).
 Atlanta Falcons à 10:39
 1-10-ATL 39 (10:39) (Shotgun) 2-M.Ryan passe longue au centre incomplète pour 12-M.Sanu [51-K.Fackrell].
 2-10-ATL 39 (10:34) (Shotgun) 2-M.Ryan passe courte à droite pour 12-M.Sanu jusqu'aux ATL 49 pour 10 yards (29-K.Brice).
 1-10-ATL 49 (10:05) (No Huddle, Shotgun) 2-M.Ryan passe courte à droite pour 81-A.Hooper poussé hors limites sur les GB 43 pour 8 yards (27-J.Jones).
 2-2-GB 43 (9:40) (No Huddle, Shotgun) 32-B.Hill court côté guard gauche jusqu'aux GB 38 pour 5 yards (27-J.Jones).
 1-10-GB 38 (9:16) (No Huddle, Shotgun) 2-M.Ryan passe courte au centre pour 11-J.Jones jusqu'aux GB 29 pour 9 yards (23-J.Alexander).
 2-1-GB 29 (8:42) (No Huddle, Shotgun) 2-M.Ryan passe longue à gauche incomplète pour 11-J.Jones.
 3-1-GB 29 (8:35) (Shotgun) PENALITE contre ATL-83-R.Gage, False Start, 5 yards, appliquée depuis les GB 29 - Pas de Jeu.
 3-6-GB 34 (8:35) (Shotgun) 2-M.Ryan passe courte au centre pour 18-C.Ridley jusqu'aux GB 24 pour 10 yards (94-D.Lowry).
 1-10-GB 24 (8:02) (No Huddle, Shotgun) 2-M.Ryan passe courte au centre pour 81-A.Hooper jusqu'aux GB 15 pour 9 yards (29-K.Brice).
 2-1-GB 15 (7:30) (No Huddle, Shotgun) 2-M.Ryan passe courte au centre pour 14-J.Hardy jusqu'aux GB 8 pour 7 yards (28-T.Brown).
 1-8-GB 8 (6:53) 2-M.Ryan passe courte à gauche incomplète pour 14-J.Hardy.
 2-8-GB 8 (6:49) (Shotgun) 2-M.Ryan Aborted. 51-A.Mack FUMBLES à GB 11, RECOUVERT par GB-26-B.Breeland à GB 7. 26-B.Breeland jusqu'aux GB 7 pour 0 yard (2-M.Ryan). snap par #51 hit #12 hit in leg
 Green Bay Packers à 06:44
 1-10-GB 7 (6:44) PENALITE contre ATL-56-S.Means, Neutral Zone Infraction, 5 yards, appliquée depuis les GB 7 - Pas de Jeu.
 1-5-GB 12 (6:44) 33-A.Jones court au centre jusqu'aux GB 16 pour 4 yards (54-F.Oluokun).
 Timeout #1 par ATL à 06:39.
 2-1-GB 16 (6:39) 33-A.Jones court côté droit jusqu'aux GB 14 pour -2 yards (97-G.Jarrett).
 Timeout #2 par ATL à 06:32.
 3-3-GB 14 (6:31) (Shotgun) 12-A.Rodgers passe courte à gauche pour 80-J.Graham jusqu'aux GB 19 pour 5 yards (59-D.Campbell).
 1-10-GB 19 (5:46) 33-A.Jones court côté tackle gauche jusqu'aux GB 23 pour 4 yards (45-D.Jones).
 2-6-GB 23 (5:02) 33-A.Jones court côté tackle droit jusqu'aux GB 30 pour 7 yards (34-B.Poole).
 1-10-GB 30 (4:18) 33-A.Jones court au centre jusqu'aux GB 28 pour -2 yards (56-S.Means, 99-T.McClain).
 2-12-GB 28 (3:37) PENALITE contre GB-78-J.Spriggs, False Start, 5 yards, appliquée depuis les GB 28 - Pas de Jeu.
 2-17-GB 23 (3:37) 33-A.Jones court côté gauche jusqu'aux GB 29 pour 6 yards (27-D.Kazee).
 Timeout #3 par ATL à 03:30.
 3-11-GB 29 (3:30) (Shotgun) 30-J.Williams court au centre jusqu'aux GB 34 pour 5 yards (97-G.Jarrett).
 4-6-GB 34 (2:44) 6-J.Scott punte 20 yards jusqu'aux ATL 46, Center-43-H.Bradley, hors limites.
 1-10-ATL 46 (2:37) (Shotgun) 2-M.Ryan passe courte à droite pour 12-M.Sanu jusqu'aux GB 47 pour 7 yards (27-J.Jones, 28-T.Brown).
 2-3-GB 47 (2:15) (No Huddle, Shotgun) 2-M.Ryan passe courte au centre pour 25-I.Smith jusqu'aux GB 44 pour 3 yards (50-B.Martinez).
 1-10-GB 44 (2:00) (Shotgun) 2-M.Ryan passe courte au centre pour 81-A.Hooper jusqu'aux GB 35 pour 9 yards (27-J.Jones). ATL-81-A.Hooper blessé sur l'action. ATL no time outs remaining with injury resulting in 10 sec à la course-off
 2-1-GB 35 (1:34) (Shotgun) 2-M.Ryan passe courte à gauche incomplète pour 25-I.Smith (23-J.Alexander).
 3-1-GB 35 (1:30) (Shotgun) 2-M.Ryan passe courte à gauche pour 25-I.Smith jusqu'aux GB 35 pour 0 yard (23-J.Alexander).
 4-1-GB 35 (1:08) (No Huddle, Shotgun) 2-M.Ryan passe courte au centre pour 12-M.Sanu jusqu'aux GB 27 pour 8 yards (50-B.Martinez).
 1-10-GB 27 (:50) (No Huddle, Shotgun) 2-M.Ryan passe longue à gauche incomplète pour 12-M.Sanu (37-J.Jackson) [94-D.Lowry].
 2-10-GB 27 (:42) (Shotgun) 2-M.Ryan passe courte au centre incomplète pour 11-J.Jones.
 3-10-GB 27 (:37) (Shotgun) 2-M.Ryan passe courte à droite pour 11-J.Jones jusqu'aux GB 19 pour 8 yards (23-J.Alexander).
 4-2-GB 19 (:18) (No Huddle, Shotgun) 2-M.Ryan passe courte au centre pour 14-J.Hardy pour 19 yards, TOUCHDOWN.
 3-M.Bryant extra point is No Good, Trop à droite, Center-46-J.Condo, Holder-5-M.Bosher.
 ATL 20 GB 34 Jeux : 10 Temps de possession : 2:23
 Green Bay Packers à 00:14
 5-M.Bosher tente un onside kick de 13 yards depuis ATL 35 jusqu'aux ATL 48. 44-A.Morrison (didn't try jusqu'aux advance) jusqu'aux ATL 48 pour 0 yard (5-M.Bosher).
 1-10-ATL 48 (:13) 9-D.Kizer met genou à terre sur les ATL 49 pour -1 yards.
 ATL 20 GB 34 Jeux : 1 Temps de possession : 0:14
 Julio leaves Alexander in the dust on 12-yard TD
 Aaron Jones shows off his wheels on 29-yard TD
 Can't-Miss Play: Rodgers lays PERFECT TD pass over defender to Cobb
 Rodgers escapes being held by jersey on third-down rush
 De'Vondre Campbell sacks Rodgers on third-and-7
 Davante Adams reaches for pylon on tight-window TD
 Davante Adams rips pass over Alford for deep gain
 Julio Jones squeezes inside pylon for 16-yard TD


text:
26.4.2003 DE Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union C 101/53
 — anzuordnen, dass ihm für den erlittenen immateriellen sein Anspruch auf Auslandszulage und somit der übrigen
 Schaden, der vorbehaltlich genauerer Festsetzung vorläu- damit im Zusammenhang stehenden Zulagen gemäß dem
 fig auf 50 000 Euro beziffert wird, Ersatz gewährt wird; Urteil Lozano nicht zugebilligt worden sei;
 — dem Beklagten die Kosten aufzuerlegen. — der Beklagten sämtliche Kosten des Verfahrens aufzuerle-
 gen.
 Klagegründe und wesentliche Argumente
 Klagegründe und wesentliche Argumente
 Der Kläger ist Beamter des Harmonisierungsamts für den
 Binnenmarkt und war bis zum 1. Mai 2002 Leiter der Die Klagegründe und wesentlichen Argumente sind die glei-
 Nichtigkeitsabteilung. Mit der angefochtenen Entscheidung chen wie in den Rechtssachen T-205/02, Salvador García/
 wurde er auf die Stelle eines Rechtsberaters beim Vizepräsiden- Kommission (1), T-298/02, Ana Herrero Romeu/Kommis-
 ten für Rechtsangelegenheiten versetzt. Der Kläger stützt sion ( 2) und T-299/02, Dedeu/Kommission ( 2).
 seinen Aufhebungsantrag auf folgende Gründe:
 (1 ) ABl. C 219 vom 14.9.2002, S. 22.
 — fehlerhafte und unzureichende Begründung der angefoch- (2 ) ABl. C 289 vom 23.11.2002, S. 38.
 tenen Entscheidung vom 22. April 2002;
 — Verletzung des Grundsatzes der Verhältnismäßigkeit und
 der Meinungsfreiheit;
 — Verletzung der Verteidigungsrechte, insbesondere des
 rechtlichen Gehörs; Streichung der Rechtssache T-305/01 (1)
 — Verstoß gegen den Grundsatz der ordnungsgemäßen
 (2003/C 101/93)
 Verwaltung und
 — Verletzung der Fürsorgepflicht. (Verfahrenssprache: Französisch)
 Mit Beschluss vom 29. Januar 2003 hat der Präsident der
 Dritten Kammer des Gerichts erster Instanz der Europäischen
 Gemeinschaften die Streichung der Rechtssache T-305/01 —
 Thalassa Seafoods S. A. gegen Kommission der Europäischen
 Klage des Tomás Salazar Brier gegen die Kommission der Gemeinschaften — angeordnet.
 Europäischen Gemeinschaften, eingereicht am 3. März
 2003
 (1 ) ABl. C 56 vom 2.3.2002.
 (Rechtssache T-83/03)
 (2003/C 101/92)
 (Verfahrenssprache: Spanisch)
 Streichung der Rechtssache T-84/02 ( 1)
 (2003/C 101/94)
 Tomás Salazar Brier, wohnhaft in Brüssel, hat am 3. März
 2003 eine Klage gegen die Kommission der Europäischen (Verfahrenssprache: Französisch)
 Gemeinschaften beim Gericht erster Instanz der Europäischen
 Gemeinschaften eingereicht. Prozessbevollmächtigte des
 Klägers sind Rechtsanwalt Ramón García-Gallardo Gil-Four-
 nier und Rechtsanwältin Maria Dolores Domínguez Pérez, Mit Beschluss vom 30. Januar 2003 hat der Präsident der
 Madrid und La Coruña, Zustellungsanschrift: Brüssel, Square Ersten Kammer des Gerichts erster Instanz der Europäischen
 de Meeûs, 19. Gemeinschaften die Streichung der Rechtssache T-84/02 —
 Armand De Buck gegen Kommission der Europäischen Ge-
 meinschaften — angeordnet.
 Der Kläger beantragt,
 — die stillschweigende Entscheidung über die Zurückwei- (1 ) ABl. C 131 vom 1.6.2002.
 sung seiner Beschwerde 528/02 durch das Schweigen der
 Kommission vom 24. Februar 2003 aufzuheben, mit der


text:
 Agardīts-(La) (nosaukts franču mineraloga Žila Agāra (Jules Agard) vārdā) ir rets minerāls. Atklāts 1980. gadā. Satur retu elementu lantānu - 9,75%. Vāji radioaktīvs (218 Bq/g).
 Atradnes
 ASV
 Kalifornija
 Ņūmeksika - divas atradnes
 Francija
 Franšekomtē
 Pireneji
 Grieķija, Atika
 Itālija, Sardīnija
 Lielbritānija
 Kornvola - divas atradnes
 Kamberlenda - divas atradnes
 Vācija
 Bādene-Virtemberga - trīs atradnes
 Lejassaksija, Harca kalni - divas atradnes
 Ārējās saites
 Mindat.org
 Webmineral.org
 Minerāli
 Vāji radioaktīvi minerāli
 Kālija minerāli
 Lantāna minerāli
 Vara minerāli
 Arsenātu minerāli