alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2007056EN.01001901.xml

| 10.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 56/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 56/19

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from House of Lords (United Kingdom) made on 20 December 2006 — Stringer and others v Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

(Case C-520/06)

(2007/C 56/33)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

House of Lords

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Stringer and others

Applicant:

Defendant: Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

Defendant:

Questions referred

| 1. | Does Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC (1) mean that a worker on indefinite sick leave is entitled (i) to designate a future period as paid annual leave and (ii) to take paid annual leave, in either case during a period that would otherwise be sick leave? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC (1) mean that a worker on indefinite sick leave is entitled (i) to designate a future period as paid annual leave and (ii) to take paid annual leave, in either case during a period that would otherwise be sick leave?

1

| 2. | If a Member State exercises its discretion to replace the minimum period of paid annual leave with an allowance in lieu on termination of employment under Article 7(2) of Directive 2003/88/EEC, in circumstances in which a worker has been absent on sick leave for all or part of the leave year in which the employment relationship is terminated, does Article 7(2) impose any requirements or lay down any criteria as to whether the allowance is to be paid or how it is to be calculated? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If a Member State exercises its discretion to replace the minimum period of paid annual leave with an allowance in lieu on termination of employment under Article 7(2) of Directive 2003/88/EEC, in circumstances in which a worker has been absent on sick leave for all or part of the leave year in which the employment relationship is terminated, does Article 7(2) impose any requirements or lay down any criteria as to whether the allowance is to be paid or how it is to be calculated?

---

(1)  OJ L 299, p. 9.

1

---
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

I, Jonathan K. Hsu, certify that:

 

1.               I have reviewed this Quarterly Report onForm 10-Q of 24/7 Real Media, Inc.;

 

2.               Based on my knowledge, this report doesnot contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3.               Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;

 

4.               The registrant’s other certifyingofficer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosurecontrols and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

a.               Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

 

b.              Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

 

c.               Disclosed in this report any change inthe registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred duringthe registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and

 

5.               The registrant’s other certifyingofficer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internalcontrol over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions):

 

a.               All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

b.              Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

Date: May 14, 2004

 
|   | /s/  Jonathan K. Hsu                            |   |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
|   | (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)         |

 

----
155 So.2d 536

#### Thomas WILLIAMS v. STATE.

8 Div. 141.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

June 20, 1963.

Thomas Williams, pro se.

Richmond M. Flowers, Atty. Gen., opposed.

SIMPSON, Justice.

Petition of Thomas Williams for certiorari to the Court of Appeals in Williams v. State, 155 So.2d 536.

Writ denied.

LIVINGSTON, C. J., and MERRILL and HARWOOD, JJ., concur.
### §1747a. Eligibility for insurance

(a) To be eligible for insurance under this subchapter, a project shall meet the following conditions:

(1) The Secretary shall be satisfied that there is, in the locality or metropolitan area of such project, a need for new rental dwellings at rents comparable to the rents proposed to be charged for the dwellings in such project.

(2) Such project shall be economically sound, and the dwellings in such project shall be acceptable to the Secretary as to quality, design, size, and type.

(b) Any insurance contract executed by the Secretary under this subchapter shall be conclusive evidence of the eligibility of the project and the investor for such insurance, and the validity of any insurance contract so executed shall be incontestable in the hands of an investor from the date of the execution of such contract, except for fraud or misrepresentation on the part of such investor.

(c) After completion of the project the investor must establish in a manner satisfactory to the Secretary that the project is free and clear of liens and that there are no other outstanding unpaid obligations contracted in connection with the construction of the project, except taxes and such other liens and obligations as may be approved or prescribed by the Secretary. Debentures issued by the investor which are payable out of net income from the project and from the benefits of the insurance contract shall not be construed as "unpaid obligations" as such term is used in this subsection.

(June 27, 1934, ch. 847, title VII, §702, as added Aug. 10, 1948, ch. 832, title IV, §401, 62 Stat. 1276; amended Apr. 20, 1950, ch. 94, title I, §122, 64 Stat. 59; Sept. 1, 1951, ch. 378, title VI, §609(a), 65 Stat. 316; Pub. L. 90–19, §1(a)(3), May 25, 1967, 81 Stat. 17.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1967—Pub. L. 90–19 substituted "Secretary" for "Commissioner" wherever appearing in subsecs. (a)(1), (2), (b), and (c).

1951—Subsec. (c). Act Sept. 1, 1951, added subsec. (c).

1950—Act Apr. 20, 1950, substituted "Commissioner" for "Administrator" wherever appearing.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

J uly 10, 2018

No. 04

- 18

- 00227

- CR & 04

- 18

- 00230

- CR

Michael Casey FORAN

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 11, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 518258 & 2016CR10025

Honorable Tommy Stolhandske, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Pursuant to this court’s prior consolidation order, appellant’s brief was due July 9,

2018. On the due date, appellant filed a motion for extension of time , asking for an additional

thirty days in which to file his brief. After review, we GRANT the motion and ORDER

appellant to file his brief in this court on or before August 8, 2018.

We order the clerk of this court to serve a copy of th is order on all counsel.

_________________________________ Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 10th day of July, 2018

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
§ 46.117 Documentation of informed consent. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, informed consent shall be documented by the use of a written informed consent form approved by the IRB and signed (including in an electronic format) by the subject or the subject's legally authorized representative. A written copy shall be given to the person signing the informed consent form.
( b ) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, the informed consent form may be either of the following: ( 1 ) A written informed consent form that meets the requirements of § 46.116. The investigator shall give either the subject or the subject's legally authorized representative adequate opportunity to read the informed consent form before it is signed; alternatively, this form may be read to the subject or the subject's legally authorized representative.
( 2 ) A short form written informed consent form stating that the elements of informed consent required by § 46.116 have been presented orally to the subject or the subject's legally authorized representative, and that the key information required by § 46.116(a)(5)(i) was presented first to the subject, before other information, if any, was provided. The IRB shall approve a written summary of what is to be said to the subject or the legally authorized representative. When this method is used, there shall be a witness to the oral presentation. Only the short form itself is to be signed by the subject or the subject's legally authorized representative. However, the witness shall sign both the short form and a copy of the summary, and the person actually obtaining consent shall sign a copy of the summary. A copy of the summary shall be given to the subject or the subject's legally authorized representative, in addition to a copy of the short form.
( c ) ( 1 ) An IRB may waive the requirement for the investigator to obtain a signed informed consent form for some or all subjects if it finds any of the following: ( i ) That the only record linking the subject and the research would be the informed consent form and the principal risk would be potential harm resulting from a breach of confidentiality. Each subject (or legally authorized representative) will be asked whether the subject wants documentation linking the subject with the research, and the subject's wishes will govern;
( ii ) That the research presents no more than minimal risk of harm to subjects and involves no procedures for which written consent is normally required outside of the research context; or
( iii ) If the subjects or legally authorized representatives are members of a distinct cultural group or community in which signing forms is not the norm, that the research presents no more than minimal risk of harm to subjects and provided there is an appropriate alternative mechanism for documenting that informed consent was obtained.
( 2 ) In cases in which the documentation requirement is waived, the IRB may require the investigator to provide subjects or legally authorized representatives with a written statement regarding the research.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under Control Number 0990-0260)
### §422. Use of funds for certain incidental purposes

(a) Counterintelligence Official Reception and Representation Expenses.—The Secretary of Defense may use funds available to the Department of Defense for counterintelligence programs to pay the expenses of hosting foreign officials in the United States under the auspices of the Department of Defense for consultation on counterintelligence matters.

(b) Promotional Items for Recruitment Purposes.—The Secretary of Defense may use funds available for an intelligence element of the Department of Defense to purchase promotional items of nominal value for use in the recruitment of individuals for employment by that element.

(Added Pub. L. 99–569, title IV, §401(c), Oct. 27, 1986, 100 Stat. 3195, §140a; renumbered §422, Pub. L. 100–26, §9(a)(3), Apr. 21, 1987, 101 Stat. 287; amended Pub. L. 107–108, title V, §501(a)–(b)(2), Dec. 28, 2001, 115 Stat. 1404.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2001—Pub. L. 107–108 substituted "Use of funds for certain incidental purposes" for "Counterintelligence official reception and representation expenses" in section catchline, designated existing provisions as subsec. (a), inserted heading, and added subsec. (b).

1987—Pub. L. 100–26 renumbered section 140a of this title as this section.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     UT
<LEGEND>
This  schedule  contains  summary  financial   information  extracted  from  the
Statement of Income, Balance Sheet and Statement of Cash Flows, and is qualified
in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                  1000
       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-30-1999
<BOOK-VALUE>                                   PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                      3,802,396
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                      349,353
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         1,848,894
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                         875,488
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                         0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 6,876,131
<COMMON>                                           1,427
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                      2,494,184
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                              547,630
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 3,043,241
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            363,000
<PREFERRED>                                       84,319
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           1,627,638
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                     0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                              0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                         0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                    398,000
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                              0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                            0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                       0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 1,359,933
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                  6,876,131
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                        958,319
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                              80,079
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                       716,415
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                       796,494
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                          161,825
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                15,980
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                   177,805
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          34,584
<NET-INCOME>                                     143,221
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        8,689
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                    134,532
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                          64,360
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                         35,216
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                           203,186
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       0.94
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       0.94
        

</TABLE>
# C_2006331EN.01001901.xml

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/19

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 December 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-54/06) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2001/42/EC - Assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment - Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)

(2006/C 331/32)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Hottiaux and F. Simonetti, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: L. Van den Broeck, Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, all the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment (OJ 2001 L 197, p. 30)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, all the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, all the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

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

2.

Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 74, 25.3.2006.

1

---
§ 17.530 Marital or parental status. ( a ) *General.* A recipient shall not apply any policy or take any employment action: ( 1 ) Concerning the potential marital, parental, or family status of an employee or applicant for employment that treats persons differently on the basis of sex; or
( 2 ) Which is based upon whether an employee or applicant for employment is the head of household or principal wage earner in such employee's or applicant's family unit.
( b ) *Pregnancy.* A recipient shall not discriminate against or exclude from employment any employee or applicant for employment on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, false pregnancy, termination of pregnancy, or recovery therefrom.
( c ) *Pregnancy as a temporary disability.* Subject to § 17.235(d), a recipient shall treat pregnancy, childbirth, false pregnancy, termination of pregnancy, recovery therefrom, and any temporary disability resulting therefrom as any other temporary disability for all job-related purposes, including commencement, duration, and extensions of leave, payment of disability income, accrual of seniority and any other benefit or service, and reinstatement, and under any fringe benefit offered to employees by virtue of employment.
( d ) *Pregnancy leave.* In the case of a recipient that does not maintain a leave policy for its employees, or in the case of an employee with insufficient leave or accrued employment time to qualify for leave under such a policy, a recipient shall treat pregnancy, childbirth, false pregnancy, termination of pregnancy, and recovery therefrom as a justification for a leave of absence without pay for a reasonable period of time, at the conclusion of which the employee shall be reinstated to the status that she held when the leave began or to a comparable position, without decrease in rate of compensation or loss of promotional opportunities, or any other right or privilege of employment.
§ 575.4 When civil fine will be assessed. The Chairman may assess a civil fine, not to exceed $63,992 per violation, against a tribe, management contractor, or individual operating Indian gaming for each notice of violation issued under § 573.3 of this chapter after considering the following factors: ( a ) *Economic benefit of noncompliance.* The Chairman shall consider the extent to which the respondent obtained an economic benefit from the noncompliance that gave rise to a notice of violation, as well as the likelihood of escaping detection. ( 1 ) The Chairman may consider the documented benefits derived from the noncompliance, or may rely on reasonable assumptions regarding such benefits.
( 2 ) If noncompliance continues for more than one day, the Chairman may treat each daily illegal act or omission as a separate violation.
( b ) *Seriousness of the violation.* The Chairman may adjust the amount of a civil fine to reflect the seriousness of the violation. In doing so, the Chairman shall consider the extent to which the violation threatens the integrity of Indian gaming.
( c ) *History of violations.* The Chairman may adjust a civil fine by an amount that reflects the respondent's history of violations over the preceding five (5) years. ( 1 ) A violation cited by the Chairman shall not be considered unless the associated notice of violation is the subject of a final order of the Commission and has not been vacated; and
( 2 ) Each violation shall be considered whether or not it led to a civil fine.
( d ) *Negligence or willfulness.* The Chairman may adjust the amount of a civil fine based on the degree of fault of the respondent in causing or failing to correct the violation, either through act or omission.
( e ) *Good faith.* The Chairman may reduce the amount of a civil fine based on the degree of good faith of the respondent in attempting to achieve rapid compliance after notification of the violation.
[58 FR 5844, Jan. 22, 1993, as amended at 81 FR 43942, July 6, 2016; 82 FR 12069, Feb. 28, 2017; 83 FR 2060, Jan. 16, 2018; 84 FR 6968, Mar. 1, 2019; 85 FR 8396, Feb. 14, 2020; 86 FR 7647, Feb. 1, 2021; 87 FR 2550, Jan. 18, 2022; 89 FR 2880, Jan. 17, 2024]
J.

J. respondents' motion to dismiss.' Appellant's NRCP 60(b) motion failed, however, to provide any argument or additional factual allegations that could have served as a basis for meeting the $10,000 jurisdictional threshold. 2 Consequently, the district court was within its discretion to deny appellant's NRCP 60(b) motion, and we therefore

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
Hardesty Parraguirr
cc: Hon. Valorie J. Vega, District Judge Francis James Johnson Attorney General/Carson City Eighth District Court Clerk

'Appellant acknowledges that he received a copy of respondents' motion to dismiss and that he did not file a written opposition to the motion.

2 Appellant's proper person appeal statement likewise fails to do so.
SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947A 2 16111WEEMMEMIIIIFIENMENINSII .,. ,31,7744f5111A7,