alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2009032EN.01003401.xml

| 7.2.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 32/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 32/34

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 3 November 2008 — Pelle and Konrad v Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities

(Joined Cases T-8/95 and T-9/95) (1)

1

(Non-contractual liability - Milk - Additional levy - Reference quantity - Regulation (EEC) No 2187/93 - Compensation of producers - Suspension of limitation)

(2009/C 32/64)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Wilhelm Pelle (Kluse-Ahlen, Germany) and Ernst-Reinhard Konrad (Löllbach, Germany) (represented by: B. Meisterernst, M. Düsing, D. Manstetten, F. Schulze and W. Haneklaus, lawyers)

Defendants: Council of the European Union (represented initially by A. Brautigam and A.-M. Colaert, and subsequently by A.-M.Colaert, agents) and the Commission of the European Communities (represented by B. Booß and M. Niejahr, agents, and subsequently by T. van Rijn and M. Niejahr, assisted initially by H.-J. Rabe, G. Berrisch and M. Núñez-Müller, lawyers)

Re:

Applications for compensation under Article 178 of the EC Treaty (now Article 235 EC) and under the second paragraph of Article 215 of the EC Treaty (now the second paragraph of Article 288 EC) for damage allegedly suffered by the applicants as a result of the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 857/84 of 31 March 1984 adopting general rules for the application of the levy referred to in Article 5c of Council Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 in the milk and milk products sector (OJ 1984 L 90, p. 13), as supplemented by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1371/84 of 16 May 1984 laying down detailed rules for the application of the additional levy referred to in Article 5c of Regulation No 804/68 (OJ 1984 L 132, p. 11).

Operative part of the order

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

1.

There is no need to adjudicate on the present action.

| 2. | Each party bears its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Each party bears its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 74, 25.3.1995.

1

---
§ 905.817 Performance standards—Underground mining activities. ( a ) Part 817 of this chapter, *Permanent Program Performance Standards—Underground Mining Activities,* shall apply to any person who conducts underground mining activities, except for § 817.116(a)(1) regarding revegetation success standards, for which paragraph (c) of this section substitutes.
( b ) All operators shall comply with the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, Cal. Pub. Res. Code section 13000 *et seq.;* the California Water Code section 1200 *et seq.;* the California Air Pollution Control Laws, Cal. Health & Safety Code section 39000 *et seq.;* the Hazardous Waste Control Law, Cal. Health & Safety Code section 25100 *et seq.;* the State Underground Storage of Hazardous Substances Law, Cal. Health & Safety Code section 25280 *et seq.;* the Solid Waste Management and Resource Recovery Act of 1972, Cal. Gov. Code section 66770 *et seq.;* the California Environmental Quality Act, Cal. Pub. Res. Code section 21000; the California Coastal Act of 1976, Cal. Pub. Res. Code section 30000 *et seq.;* the Z'berg-Nejedly Forest Practice Act of 1973, Cal. Pub. Res. Code section 4511 *et seq.;* the California Public Resources Code section 4656; and regulations promulgated pursuant to these laws.
( c ) Standards for success shall be those identified in § 817.116(a)(2) of this chapter. Statistically valid sampling techniques for measuring success shall be included in the mining and reclamation plan, and approved by the regulatory authority.
### §101938. Sunset

The authority given to the Secretary under this subchapter shall expire 9 years after the date of the enactment of this subchapter.

(Added Pub. L. 114–289, title VII, §701, Dec. 16, 2016, 130 Stat. 1494; amended Pub. L. 117–328, div. G, title I, §123, Dec. 29, 2022, 136 Stat. 4789.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The date of the enactment of this subchapter, referred to in text, is the date of enactment of Pub. L. 114–289, which was approved Dec. 16, 2016.

#### Amendments

2022—Pub. L. 117–328 substituted "9" for "7".
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Ferdinand Baumgart, Appellant, against Walter B. Martin, as Warden of Attica Prison, Respondent.

— Motion granted and appeal dismissed, without costs. Motion to prosecute appeal on typed papers denied. (See *People ex rel. Meers*v. Martin, 4 A D 2d 659, affd. 4 N Y 2d 898.)
§ 18.48 Circuit-interrupting devices. ( a ) Each machine shall be equipped with a circuit-interrupting device by means of which all power conductors can be deenergized at the machine. A manually operated controller will not be acceptable as a service switch.
( b ) When impracticable to mount the main-circuit-interrupting device on a machine, a remote enclosure will be acceptable. When contacts are used as a main-circuit-interrupting device, a means for opening the circuit shall be provided at the machine and at the remote contactors.
( c ) Separate two-pole switches shall be provided to deenergize power conductors for headlights or floodlights.
( d ) Each handheld tool shall be provided with a two-pole switch of the “dead-man-control” type that must be held closed by hand and will open when hand pressure is released.
( e ) A machine designed to operate from both trolley wire and portable cable shall be provided with a transfer switch, or equivalent, which prevents energizing one from the other. Such a switch shall be designed to prevent electrical connection to the machine frame when the cable is energized.
( f ) Belt conveyors shall be equipped with control switches to automatically stop the driving motor in the event the belt is stopped, or abnormally slowed down.
Note:
Short transfer-type conveyors will be exempted from this requirement when attended.
**THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS**

**Post Office Box 12248**

**Austin, Texas 78711**

**(512) 463-1312**

April 17, 2009

Mr. Don R. Cotton

The Bob Richardson Law Firm

812 San Antonio St., Ste. 300

Austin, TX 78701

Mr. L. Chris Heinemeyer

Krenek & Heinemeyer, P.C.

9601 McAllister Freeway, Suite 1110

San Antonio, TX 78216

RE:Case Number:  07-0760

Court of Appeals Number:  11-05-00371-CV

Trial Court Number:  04-0-017

Style:GREG TANNER AND MARIBEL TANNER, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT FRIENDS OF K.T. AND R.T., MINOR CHILDREN

v.

NATIONWIDE MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

Dear Counsel:

Today the Supreme Court of Texas delivered the enclosed opinions and judgment in the above-referenced cause.  

Sincerely,

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

by Claudia Jenks, Chief Deputy Clerk

Enclosures

**Case No. 07-0760Page 1**
Editorial Note on Part 817
Editorial Note: At 82 FR 54999, Nov. 17, 2017, as required by the Congressional Review Act and Public Law 115-5, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement removed all amendments to part 817 made effective on Jan. 19, 2017, at 81 FR 93418, Dec. 20, 2016.

§ 817.87 Coal mine waste: Burning and burned waste utilization. ( a ) Coal mine waste fires shall be extinguished by the person who conducts the surface mining activities, in accordance with a plan approved by the regulatory authority and the Mine Safety and Health Administration. The plan shall contain, at a minimum, provisions to ensure that only those persons authorized by the operator, and who have an understanding of the procedures to be used, shall be involved in the extinguishing operations.
( b ) No burning or unburned coal mine waste shall be removed from a permitted disposal area without a removal plan approved by the regulatory authority. Consideration shall be given to potential hazards to persons working or living in the vicinity of the structure.
[48 FR 44031, Sept. 26, 1983, as amended at 81 FR 93418, Dec. 20, 2016; 82 FR 54999, Nov. 17, 2017]
§ 585.508 What rent payments must I pay on ROW grants or RUE grants associated with renewable energy projects? ( a ) For each ROW grant BOEM approves under subpart D of this part, you must pay annual rent of $5 per acre to ONRR as provided in 30 CFR 1218.51 and as determined by § 585.301(a), but in no case less than $450, for use of the grant, unless specified otherwise in the grant.
( b ) For each RUE grant BOEM approves under subpart D of this part, you must pay rent to ONRR as provided in 30 CFR 1218.51 in the amount of: ( 1 ) $5 per acre per year; or
( 2 ) A minimum of $450 per year.
( c ) You must make the rent payments required by paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section on: ( 1 ) An annual basis;
( 2 ) For a 5-year period; or
( 3 ) For multiples of 5 years.
( d ) You must make the first annual rent payment upon approval of your ROW grant or RUE grant request, as provided in § 585.500, and all subsequent rent payments to ONRR in accordance with the regulations at 30 CFR 1218.51.
#### Elite 29 Realty LLC, Respondent, v George R. Pitt et al., Appellants.

[833 NYS2d 456]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Thomas A. Stander, J.), entered August 31, 2006, which, inter alia, granted plaintiffs cross motion to enforce the parties’ stipulated settlement, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The court properly determined that the Peluso & Touger law firm lacked standing to submit a motion on defendants’ behalf to vacate the stipulated settlement *(see Dobbins v County of Erie,*58 AD2d 733 [1977]; *Szuldiner v City of New York,*18 AD2d 897 [1963]; *and see Ottaviano v Genex Coop., Inc.,*15 AD3d 924 [2005]; *cf. EIFS, Inc. v Morie Co.,*298 AD2d 548 [2002]; *Diamadopolis v Balfour,*152 AD2d 532 [1989]). No exception to these rules is warranted in this case, particularly since the firm which sought to be substituted and filed the motion did not in fact represent all of defendants, yet purported to make the motion on their behalf. Although Peluso & Touger was without standing to move on defendants’ behalf, the court properly considered the firm’s submissions on behalf of defendants who had belatedly consented to its substitution as their counsel, in opposition to plaintiffs cross motion to enforce the settlement, and correctly found that the parties freely entered into the settlement after extensive negotiations and that it should therefore be enforced. Although defendants now challenge certain terms of the settlement, the settlement, stipulated on the record immediately before the matter was to be tried, contains an arbitration provision permitting the court to consider and determine any dispute.

We have considered defendants’ remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Saxe, J.P, Friedman, Sweeny, McGuire and Malone, JJ.
1 This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Reports. Please see

2 Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please

3 also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other

4 deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the

5 filing date. 

6 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

7 CITY OF DEMING,

8 Plaintiff-Appellee,

9 v. NO. 29,712

10 BILLY EDWARDS,

11 Defendant-Appellant.

12 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF LUNA COUNTY

13 Daniel Viramontes, District Judge

14 Beall & Biehler PA

15 Mary T. Torres

16 Albuquerque, NM 

17 for Appellee 

18 Billy L. Edwards

19 Deming, NM

20 Pro se Appellant

21 MEMORANDUM OPINION

22 BUSTAMANTE, Judge.

23 Appellant, pro se, appeals from the district court’s order dismissing the
2

1 complaint on Appellee’s motion to dismiss. This Court filed a first notice of proposed

2 disposition proposing summary affirmance. Appellant filed two pleadings entitled

3 “Brief-in-Chief” and a “Brief-in-Chief/Memorandum.” However, these pleadings did

4 not rectify the problems with the docketing statement, as enumerated in the first

5 notice. Nor does the memorandum in opposition point out any errors or fact in the law

6 cited in the first notice. “Our courts have repeatedly held that, in summary calendar

7 cases, the burden is on the party opposing the proposed disposition to clearly point out

8 errors in fact or law.” Hennessy v. Duryea, 1998-NMCA-036, ¶ 24, 124 N.M. 754,

9 955 P.2d 683. In addition, the first notice warned Appellant that unless a

10 memorandum in opposition was filed that clearly enumerated the reasons the district

11 court erred in granting Appellee’s motion to dismiss, and the authority in support of

12 each argument, this Court would proceed to affirm the district court. Appellant has

13 not articulated clear legal issues applicable to the appeal, or cited to relevant case law.

14 See Clayton v. Trotter, 110 N.M. 369, 373, 796 P.2d 262, 266 (Ct. App. 1990)

15 (stating that this Court will review pro se arguments to the best of its ability, but

16 cannot respond to unintelligible arguments). 

17 For these reasons, and those stated in the first notice of proposed disposition,

18 we affirm the district court.

19 IT IS SO ORDERED.
3

1 

2 MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge

3 WE CONCUR:

4 

5 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge 

6 

7 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge
#### § 922.701 General.

Sections 700.5, 700.11, 700.12, 700.13, 700.14, 700.15 and part 701 of this chapter shall apply to surface coal mining operations in Michigan.
§ 847.16 Civil actions for relief. ( a ) Under section 521(c) of the Act, we, the regulatory authority, may request the Attorney General to institute a civil action for relief whenever you, the permittee, or your agent— ( 1 ) Violate or fail or refuse to comply with any order or decision that we issue under the Act or regulatory program;
( 2 ) Interfere with, hinder, or delay us in carrying out the provisions of the Act or its implementing regulations;
( 3 ) Refuse to admit our authorized representatives onto the site of a surface coal mining and reclamation operation;
( 4 ) Refuse to allow our authorized representatives to inspect a surface coal mining and reclamation operation;
( 5 ) Refuse to furnish any information or report that we request under the Act or regulatory program; or
( 6 ) Refuse to allow access to, or copying of, those records that we determine necessary to carry out the provisions of the Act and its implementing regulations.
( b ) A civil action for relief includes a permanent or temporary injunction, restraining order, or any other appropriate order by a district court of the United States for the district in which the surface coal mining and reclamation operation is located or in which you have your principal office.
( c ) Temporary restraining orders will be issued in accordance with Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended.
( d ) Any relief the court grants to enforce an order under paragraph (b) of this section will continue in effect until completion or final termination of all proceedings for review of that order under the Act or its implementing regulations unless, beforehand, the district court granting the relief sets aside or modifies the order.
[65 FR 79671, Dec. 19, 2000, as amended at 72 FR 68031, Dec. 3, 2007]
<PAGE>   1
                                  EXHIBIT 23.1






Consent of Independent Auditors

The Board of Directors
STM Wireless, Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos.
33-50806, 33-99570, 33-99572) on Form S-8 and registration statements (Nos.
33-73962, 33-70650, 33-99568) on Form S-3 of STM Wireless, Inc. of our report
dated March 21, 1997, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of STM
Wireless, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1996 and 1995, and the
related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity and cash
flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 1996,
and the related schedule, which report appears in the December 31, 1996 annual
report on Form 10-K of STM Wireless, Inc.


Orange County, California
April 14, 1997




                                       63
# C_2023180EN.01001501.xml

| 23.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 180/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 180/15

---

Notice for the attention of the persons and entities to whom measures provided for in Council Decision 2011/235/CFSP, as implemented by Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2023/987 and in Council Regulation (EU) No 359/2011, as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/986 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Iran apply

(2023/C 180/06)

The following information is brought to the attention of the persons and entities that appear in the Annex to Council Decision 2011/235/CFSP (1), as implemented by Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2023/987 (2), and in Annex I to Council Regulation (EU) No 359/2011 (3), as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/986 (4) concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Iran.

The Council of the European Union has decided that those persons and entities should be included on the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures provided for in Decision 2011/235/CFSP and in Regulation (EU) No 359/2011.

The attention of the persons and entities concerned is drawn to the possibility of making an application to the competent authorities of the relevant Member State(s) as indicated on the websites in Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 359/2011, in order to obtain an authorisation to use frozen funds for basic needs or specific payments (cf. Article 4 of the Regulation).

The persons and entities concerned may submit a request to the Council before 1 January 2024, together with supporting documentation that the decision to include them on the above-mentioned list should be reconsidered to the following address:

| Council of the European Union |
| --- |
| General Secretariat |
| RELEX.1 |
| Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175 |
| 1048 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

Council of the European Union

General Secretariat

RELEX.1

Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175

1048 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu

The attention of the persons and entities concerned is also drawn to the possibility of challenging the Council's decision before the General Court of the European Union, in accordance with the conditions laid down in Article 275, second paragraph, and Article 263, fourth and sixth paragraphs, of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ L 100, 14.4.2011, p. 51.

(2)  OJ L 134 I, 22.5.2023, p. 6.

(3)  OJ L 100, 14.4.2011, p. 1.

(4)  OJ L 134 I, 22.5.2023, p. 1.

---
# C_2008197EN.01001801.xml

| 2.8.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 197/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 197/18

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 26 June 2008 — Alferink and Others v Commission

(Case T-94/98) (1)

1

(Actions for damages - Non-contractual liability - Milk - Additional levy - Reference quantity - Producers who entered into non-marketing undertakings - Requirement that production be on the initial SLOM holding - Article 3a of Regulation (EEC) No 1546/88, as amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1033/89 - Allegedly ambiguous wording of the applicable provision - Principle of legal certainty)

(2008/C 197/30)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicants: Alfonsius Alferink, (Heeten, Netherlands), and the other 67 applicants whose names are set out in the annex to the judgment (represented initially by H. Bronkhorst and E. Pijnacker Hordijk, subsequently by H. Bronkhorst, E. Pijnacker Hordijk and J. Sluysmans, and finally by E. Pijnacker Hordijk, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: T. van Rijn, Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Claims for damages under Article 178 of the EC Treaty (now Article 235 EC) and the second paragraph of Article 215 of the EC Treaty (now the second paragraph of Article 288 EC) seeking compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicants by reason of the fact that the Commission infringed the principle of legal certainty when it adopted Regulation (EEC) No 1033/89 of 20 April 1989 amending Regulation (EEC) No 1546/88 laying down detailed rules for the application of the additional levy referred to in Article 5c of Council Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 (OJ 1989 L 110, p. 27), which did not provide clearly and precisely that milk production had to be resumed from the initial SLOM holding.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Alfonsius Alferink and the other 67 applicants whose names are listed in the annex to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Alfonsius Alferink and the other 67 applicants whose names are listed in the annex to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 358, 21.11.1998.

1

---
Exhibti 32.2


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


Certification of Chief Financial Officer

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Tradequest International, Inc., (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the fiscal quarter ending June 30, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Randall K. Read, Chief Financial Officer certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

         (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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






August 24, 2004                /s/ Randall K. Read
---------------                -----------------------------------
                               Randall K. Read
                               Chief Financial Officer
§ 108.1 Purpose. This part: ( a ) Establishes policy and assigns responsibilities under 10 U.S.C. 1074(c) for health care eligibility under the Secretarial Designee Program.
( b ) Implements the requirement of 10 U.S.C. 2559 that the United States receive reimbursement for inpatient health care provided in the United States to foreign military or diplomatic personnel or their dependents, except in certain cases covered by Reciprocal Health Care Agreements (RHCAs) between the Department of Defense and a foreign country.
**Exhibit No. 32.1**

**Certification ofCEO Pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350,As Adopted Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

In connection withthe Quarterly Report of DRS Technologies, Inc. on Form 10-Q forthe quarter ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Mark S. Newman, ChiefExecutive Officer of DRS Technologies, Inc., certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that to my knowledge:

1)              The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2)              Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and result of operations of DRS Technologies, Inc.
| November 9, 2006 | /s/ MARK S.  NEWMAN       |
|-----------------------|---------------------------|
|                  | Mark S. Newman            |
| * *              | *Chief Executive Officer* |

 

A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BYSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO DRSTECHNOLOGIES, INC. AND WILL BE RETAINED BY DRS TECHNOLOGIES, INC. AND FURNISHEDTO THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.

----