alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2008209EN.01006802.xml

| 15.8.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 209/68 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 209/68

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Full Court) of 24 June 2008 — Cerafogli and Paolo Poloni v ECB

(Case F-116/05) (1)

1

(Staff Case - ECB Staff - Remuneration - Method of calculation of annual salary adjustment - Enforcement of a judgment of the Community judicature - Confirmatory act - Inadmissibility)

(2008/C 209/123)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Maria Concetta Cerafogli and Paolo Poloni (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB) (represented by: F. Malfrère and K. Sugar, Agents and H.-G. Kamann, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

First, annulment of the applicants' respective remuneration slips for the month of July 2001, as drawn up by the European Central Bank in May 2005, in enforcement of the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 20 November 2003 in Case T-63/02 Cerafolgi and Poloni v ECB and, second, a claim for damages.

Cerafolgi and Poloni

ECB

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

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

1.

Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

| 2. | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 48, 25.2.2005 (case initially lodged before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities as Case T-431/05 and transferred to the European Union Civil Service Tribunal by order of 15.12.2005).

1

---
§ 37.820 Must I require a recipient to return interest on advance payments? If your expenditure-based TIA provides for either advance payments or payable milestones, the agreement must require the recipient to: ( a ) Maintain in an interest-bearing account any advance payments or milestone payment amounts received in advance of needs to disburse the funds for program purposes unless: ( 1 ) The recipient receives less than $120,000 in Federal grants, cooperative agreements, and TIAs per year;
( 2 ) The best reasonably available interest-bearing account would not be expected to earn interest in excess of $1,000 per year on the advance or milestone payments; or
( 3 ) The depository would require an average or minimum balance so high that it would not be feasible within the expected Federal and non-Federal cash resources for the project.
( b ) Remit annually the interest earned to the administrative agreements officer.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Fred Sardo, Appellant.

Reargument of motion to prosecute appeal as a poor person granted, and upon reargument motion granted to prosecute appeal on original papers, five typewritten briefs, and John J. Appel II, Rochester. N. Y., assigned as counsel.
#### Norma Schwam, Respondent, v. Bernard Schwam, Appellant.

Motion by appellant for a stay of order directing the payment of alimony *pendente lite*and counsel fee, pending the appeal from said order, granted on *499the following conditions: (1) that appellant pay respondent $200 a week commencing as of September 20, 1960, on account of alimony; (2) that appellant pay to respondent or her attorneys $1,500 on account of the counsel fee, with leave to respondent, if she be so advised, to apply to the trial court for an additional counsel fee; and (3) that appellant perfect the appeal and be ready to argue or submit it at the January 1961 Term. The appeal is ordered on the calendar for said term. In the event of appellant’s default in complying with said conditions, the motion for a stay is denied. The record on appeal and appellant’s brief must be served and filed on or before December 9, 1960. Beldock, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-27-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-29-1997
<CASH>                                             351
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   11,499
<ALLOWANCES>                                        89
<INVENTORY>                                      2,340
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                20,015
<PP&E>                                           9,115
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,474
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  24,124
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,109
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      2,309
<COMMON>                                         2,924
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    24,124
<SALES>                                         13,825
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                13,825
<CGS>                                            9,507
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,433
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   107
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 601
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,177
<INCOME-TAX>                                       411
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                766
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       766
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.21
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.19
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2














CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350






In connection with the Annual Report of James River Coal Company (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2010 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Samuel M. Hopkins, II, Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 as adopted by § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




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




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






Dated:  March 9, 2011




/s/ Samuel M. Hopkins II

Samuel M. Hopkins, II

Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer
IV 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 170 

Recognizing it is the congressional intent of the Affordable Care Act that 

enhanced Federal medical assistance percentage funds are to be directly 

shared with the counties in States with a Medicaid local share requirement. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 27, 2023 

Mr. MOLINARO (for himself, Ms. TENNEY, and Mr. LANGWORTHY) submitted 

the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Energy 

and Commerce 

RESOLUTION 

Recognizing it is the congressional intent of the Affordable 

Care Act that enhanced Federal medical assistance percentage funds are to be directly shared with the counties 

in States with a Medicaid local share requirement. 

Whereas county governments that receive enhanced Federal 

medical assistance percentage (eFMAP) funds use such 

funds to deliver critical services through Medicaid to vulnerable and underserved populations, such as mental 

health services, home health services, long-term care services, and other necessary support services; 

Whereas, since the inception of the eFMAP, States have been 

sharing such funds with the counties to deliver such care 

to underserved communities; 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 170 IH 

Whereas New York State Governor Kathy Hochul’s latest 

budget withholds a percentage of funds that are supposed 

to be given directly to the counties and absorbs such 

amount into the State budget; 

Whereas 18 States mandate counties contribute to the nonFederal share of Medicaid costs, such as California, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, Minnesota, 

Michigan, Illinois, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New 

York, Vermont, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, 

and Florida; 

Whereas such withholding of eFMAP funds from the New 

York State counties adds up to $1,000,000,000; 

Whereas New York State’s actions to withhold eFMAP funds 

is preventing counties from providing the necessary support to vulnerable children and seniors; 

Whereas the withholding of eFMAP funds from counties will 

force county governments to raise property taxes to make 

up for such revenue loss; and 

Whereas counties should be reconciled and retroactively receive such eFMAP funds to ensure Medicaid-dependent 

populations receive the support and care they need: Now, 

therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives recog2 nizes that State governments that require a local county 

3 share should not withhold such funds from counties to 

4 make up for States’ Medicaid budgetary shortfalls. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
#### In the Matter of Anna Riester et al., Individually and as Representatives of Fleming Citizens Committee, Appellants, v. Town Board of the Town of Fleming et al., Respondents.

Order unanimously modified by reducing the amount of the undertaking required of petitioners to $2,000 and as modified order affirmed, with costs to petitioners. Memorandum: This appeal is solely from that part of an order of Special Term, Supreme Court, which ordered petitioners to give an undertaking in the amount of $140,000 as a condition precedent to reviewing a determination of the Town Board establishing a water district. The order directing the bond was granted pursuant to subdivision 2 of section 195 of the Town Law which provides in part: “ No review shall be had unless at the time of the application for a certiorari order the interested person seeking the review shall give an undertaking approved by the supreme court, or a justice thereof, as to form, amount and sufficiency sureties, that, in the event of failure to modify said final determination or order he or they will pay to the town board, *all such, costs*
      *749
      *and expenses as are incurred by it on account of the said certiorari proceedings,*as shall be determined by the court.” (Emphasis added.) The Special Term Justice construed the words “ costs and expenses ” as though they included damages because of the institution of the proceeding. No authority for such construction has been brought to our attention. In fact an analysis of the use of similar langage in other statutes indicates that this language is intended to include just what it says — all costs and expenses incurred because of the certiorari proceeding. Possible damages, therefore, should play no part in setting the amount of the bond, which need be sufficient only to keep the town whole because of actual costs and disbursements in the proceeding. The amount of $140,000 is grossly excessive. (Appeal from Cayuga Special Term denying respondents’ motion to dismiss petition as matter of law, directing filing of $140,000 undertaking, within five days, and upon failure to file a final order will be entered.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Henry, Noonan and Del Yecchio, JJ.
###### Editorial Note on Part 724

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 724 appear at 65 FR 62616, Oct. 19, 2000.

#### § 724.219 Withdrawal of application.

An applicant shall be permitted to withdraw an application without prejudice at any time before the scheduled review, except that failure to appear for a scheduled hearing shall not be construed or accepted as a withdrawal.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 12.2

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Tal Raz, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Elron Electronic
     Industries Ltd.;

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

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

4.   The company's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
     establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
     in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the company and have:

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

     b.   Evaluated the effectiveness of the company's disclosure controls and
          procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
          effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
          of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

     c.   Disclosed in this report any change in the company's internal control
          over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by
          the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably
          likely to materially affect, the company's internal control over
          financial reporting; and

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

     a.   All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
          operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
          reasonably likely to adversely affect the company's ability to record,
          process, summarize and report financial information; and

     b.   Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
          employees who have a significant role in the company's internal
          control over financial reporting.

Date: June 28, 2004

/s/ Tal Raz
------------------------------------------
Tal Raz
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 42453

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

MATTHEW EDWARD McGRAW,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2015 Unpublished Opinion No. 495

Filed: May 20, 2015

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada

County. Hon. Melissa Moody, District Judge. 

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of fourteen years indeterminate for 

grand theft, affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Ben P. McGreevy, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney 

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before MELANSON, Chief Judge; LANSING, Judge;

and GRATTON, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

Matthew Edward McGraw was found guilty of grand theft, Idaho Code §§ 18-2403(1), 

18-2407(1)(b), 18-2409, and misdemeanor charges of: providing false information to law 

enforcement, I.C. § 18-5412(2); illegal consumption of alcohol, I.C. § 23-949; and malicious 

injury to property, I.C. § 18-7001(1). The district court sentenced McGraw to an indeterminate 

fourteen years for grand theft and concurrent sentences with credit for time served on each of the 

misdemeanor charges. McGraw appeals asserting that the district court abused its discretion by 

imposing an excessive sentence and by declining to place him on probation.
2

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the 

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and 

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114, 117-18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014-

15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez, 106 Idaho 447, 449-51, 680 P.2d 869, 871-73 (Ct. App. 

1984); State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing 

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record 

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, McGraw’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
§ 720.40 Purpose. This instruction: ( a ) Implements 32 CFR part 146.
( b ) Establishes policy and procedures for requesting the return to the United States of, or other action affecting, Department of the Navy (DON) personnel and employees serving outside the United States, and family members accompanying them, in compliance with court orders.
#### § 634.40 General off installation traffic activities.

In areas not under military control, civil authorities enforce traffic laws. Law enforcement authorities will establish a system to exchange information with civil authorities. Army and Air Force installation law enforcement authorities will establish a system to exchange information with civil authorities to enhance the chain of command's visibility of a soldier's and airman's off post traffic violations. These agreements will provide for the assessment of traffic points based on reports from state licensing authorities involving Army military personnel. The provisions of subpart E of this part and the VRS automated system provide for the collection of off post traffic incident reports and data. As provided in AR 190-45, civilian law enforcement agencies are considered routine users of Army law enforcement data and will be granted access to data when available from Army law enforcement systems of records. Off-installation traffic activities in overseas areas are governed by formal agreements with the host nation government. Procedures should be established to process reports received from civil authorities on serious traffic violations, accidents, and intoxicated driving incidents involving persons subject to this part. The exchange of information is limited to Army and Air Force military personnel. Provost marshals will not collect and use data concerning civilian employees, family members, and contract personnel except as allowed by state and Federal laws.
Exhibit 23.1


# CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by
reference in Registration Statement No. 333-93773 of Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan,
Inc. on Form S-8 of our report dated April 29, 2005, appearing in the Annual Report
on Form 11-K of the PCS U.S. Employees Saving Plan for the year ended
December 31, 2004.

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP Chicago, Illinois
  June 24,
2005
Back to Contents

EXHIBIT 32

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Environmental Tectonics Corporation (the “Company”) for the fiscal quarter ended August 26, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, William F. Mitchell, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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

|   |                    |
|--------|-------------------------|
|   | /s/William F. Mitchell  |
|        |                         |
|   | William F. Mitchell     |
|   | Chief Executive Officer |
|   |                    |
|   |                    |
|   | /s/ Duane D. Deaner     |
|        |                         |
|   | Duane D. Deaner         |
|   | Chief Financial Officer |
|   |                    |
|   | October 11, 2005        |

     This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed to be filed by the Company for purpose of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

     A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

----