alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2014085EN.01001702.xml

| 22.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 85/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 85/17

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 20 January 2014 — Beaudout Père et Fils SARL v Ministre du travail, de l’emploi, de la formation professionnelle et du dialogue social, Confédération nationale de la boulangerie et boulangerie-pâtisserie française, Fédération Générale Agroalimentaire — CFDT and Others

(Case C-26/14)

2014/C 85/31

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Beaudout Père et Fils SARL

Applicant:

Defendants: Ministre du travail, de l’emploi, de la formation professionnelle et du dialogue social, Confédération nationale de la boulangerie et boulangerie-pâtisserie française, Fédération Générale Agroalimentaire — CFDT and Others

Defendants:

Question referred

Question referred

Is compliance with the obligation of transparency flowing from Article 56 TFEU a mandatory prior condition for the extension, by a Member State, to all undertakings within a sector, of a collective agreement under which a single operator, chosen by the social partners, is entrusted with the management of a compulsory supplementary social security scheme for employees?

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                           4,819
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   80,123
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,472
<INVENTORY>                                    120,153
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               209,050
<PP&E>                                          35,546
<DEPRECIATION>                                  22,398
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 233,882
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           72,823
<BONDS>                                         43,490
<COMMON>                                        63,056
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      54,513
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   233,882
<SALES>                                        564,325
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               564,325
<CGS>                                          436,568
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  436,568
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                98,583
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,716
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,612
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 25,812
<INCOME-TAX>                                    10,841
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             14,971
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    14,971
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.11
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   (25)
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     (25)
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,369,810
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        45,996
<OTHER-SE>                                  (2,611,897)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       (25)
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   31,941
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              13,994
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 (85,935)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (85,935)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.00)


</TABLE>
### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10
- 09
- 00100
- CR
SUSAN MEADOR , Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

From the 220th District Court Bosque County, Texas Trial Court No. 14,273

MEMORANDUM OPINION
After Susan Meador entered an open guilt y plea to the state

- jail felony offense of theft by check of $1,500 or more but less than $20,000, a jury assessed a two

- year state

jail term and a $7,500 fine. Meador appealed. Meador’s appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and an
An ders brief , asserting that he has diligently reviewed the appellate record and that, inMeador v. St ate Page 2

his opinion, the appeal is frivolous. 1 See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396,
18 L.Ed. 2d 493 (1967)

. Although informed of her right to do so, Meador did not file a pro se brief or
response . The State waived the filin g of a brief. We will affirm.
In an Anders case, we must, “after a full examination of all the proceedings, [] decide whether the case is wholly frivolous.” Anders , 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400 ; accord Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 509

- 11 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991)

. An appeal is “wholly frivolous” or “without merit” when it “lacks any basis in law or fact.” McCoy v. Court of Appeals , 486 U.S. 429, 439 n.10, 108 S. Ct. 1895, 1902 n.10, 100 L.Ed. 2d 4 40 (1988)

. We have conducted an independent review of the record, and because we find this appeal to be wholly frivolous , w e affirm the judgment. C ounsel must send Meador a copy of our decision by certified mail, return receipt requested, at Meador’s las t
known address. T EX

. R. A PP
. P. 48.4 . Counsel must also notify Meador of h er right to
file a pro se petition for discretionary re view. Id .; see also Ex parte Owens , 206 S.W.3d 670,
673

- 74 (Tex. Cr im. App. 2006) . We g rant counsel’ s motion to withdraw, effective upon
counsel ’s compliance with this notificati on requirement as evidenced by “ a letter [to
this Co urt] certifying his compliance.” See T EX

. R. A PP
. P. 48.4

.

1 Meador’s counsel does identify that the indictment contains a clerical error: it omits the last digit of the year for the grand jury’s July term, reading “200.” Counsel notes that no law exists that would afford Meador any relief based on this error . Moreover, Meador’s open guilty plea waived all nonjurisdictional defects. See Stahle v. State, 970 S.W.2d 682, 694 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 1998, pet. ref’d) (“ The law in this Sta te is well settled that a guilty plea entered without benefit of a plea bargain waives all nonjurisdictional defects occurrin g prior to entry of the plea.”); see also T EX

. C ODE C RIM

. P ROC

. A NN

. art. 1.14(b) (Vernon 2005).Meador v. St ate Page 3 REX D. DAVIS Justice Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis , and Justice Scoggins (Chief Justice Gray concurs in the judgment. A separate opinion will not issue.) Affirmed Opini on delivered and filed April 1 3, 2011 Do n ot p ublish [CR25]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                           2,572
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   49,935
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,842
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                86,934
<PP&E>                                         138,504
<DEPRECIATION>                                  19,584
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 512,607
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           72,036
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           363
<OTHER-SE>                                      28,151
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   512,607
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               195,166
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  162,628
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                17,570
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   946
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              26,497
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 14,968
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,687
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              9,281
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (1,373)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,908
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.25
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.24


</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1


THE LOEWEN GROUP INC.


Contact:          Sitrick And Company
                  Anita-Marie Hill
                  Jennifer Mercer
                  (310) 788-2850

                              FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
              THE LOEWEN GROUP ANNOUNCES APPOINTMENT OF MICHAEL A.
                     CORNELISSEN AS CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

                   -----------------------------------------

Vancouver, BC - July 2, 1999 - The Loewen Group Inc. (NYSE,TSE,ME:LWN) announced
today the appointment of Michael A. Cornelissen as Chief Financial Officer of
the Company.

Mr. Cornelissen, 56, holds professional accounting and MBA qualifications and
has had extensive senior level business experience in corporate financial
restructuring.

In recent years, he has completed senior level consulting assignments for WIC
Western International Communications, BC Rail Group and Jim Pattison Group.
Prior to this, he held senior executive positions with Royal Trustco Ltd.,
Trizec Corporation Ltd., and Hees International Ltd. Mr. Cornelissen served as
Chief Financial Officer of Trizec and Rennies Consolidated Holdings Ltd., a
subsidiary of Jardine Mattheson.

"Loewen is fortunate to have recruited such a seasoned, internationally
experienced senior financial executive as Michael Cornelissen at this important
time in Loewen's history," said John S. Lacey, chairman of The Loewen Group. "He
adds considerable strength to our senior management restructuring team."

Mr. Cornelissen's appointment is effective immediately. Alan Thomas, who has
been serving as Acting Chief Financial Officer on an interim basis, will be
continuing with the Company until the end of July in support of Mr.
Cornelissen's assumption of duties.

Based in Vancouver, The Loewen Group Inc. owns or operates more than 1,100


<PAGE>   2


funeral homes and more than 400 cemeteries across the United States, Canada and
the United Kingdom. The Company employs approximately 13,000 people and derives
90 percent of its revenue from U.S. operations.
                                  # # #
Safe Harbor: Certain statements contained in this press release, including but
not limited to information regarding the future economic performance and
financial condition of the Company, the plans and objectives of the Company's
management and the Company's assumptions regarding such performance and plans,
are forward-looking in nature. Additional information concerning important
factors that could cause actual results to differ from the forward-looking
information contained in this release is included in the Company's publicly
filed quarterly and annual reports.
WILLIE PRICE,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D14-4124

_____________________________/

Opinion filed June 30, 2016.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Gadsden County.

Barbara K. Hobbs, Judge.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, Steven L. Seliger, Assistant Public Defender, 

Kathleen Stover, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, and Samantha Porche, 

Assistant Public Defender, Quincy, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Trisha Meggs Pate, Assistant Attorney 

General, and Jillian H. Reding, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for 

Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROWE, KELSEY, and JAY, JJ., CONCUR.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32 (a)

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Northland Cable Properties Seven
Limited Partnership (the "Partnership") on Form 10Q for the period ended June
30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Form 10-Q"), I, John Whetzell, Chief Executive Officer of Northland
Communications Corporation, the General Partner, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that;

      (1)   The Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a)
            or (15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or
            78(d)); and

      (2)   The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Partnership.

DATE: 8-14-06

/s/  JOHN S. WHETZELL
     -----------------------------------
     John S. Whetzell
     Chief Executive Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Northland Cable Properties Seven Limited Partnership and will be
retained by Northland Cable Properties Seven Limited Partnership and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER**

 

I, Douglas W. Cowan, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Retractable Technologies, Inc.;

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement ofa 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 includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

 

4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officers and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) for the small business issuer 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 small business issuer, 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 small business issuer’s disclosurecontrols 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; 

 

c) Disclosed in this report any changes in the small business issuer’s internal controlsover financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the small business issuer’s internal controls over financial reporting; and 

 

5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer’s auditors andthe audit committee of the small business issuer’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 adverselyaffect the small business issuer’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 small business issuer’s internal control overfinancial reporting. 

 

Date: March 29, 2004
SERVED MAY 24, 2010 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

NEWLY WEDS FOODS, INC. 

FAA DOCKET NO. CP10SW0003 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

DMS NO. FAA 2010-0198 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

The Federal Aviation Administration (hereinafter referred to as "Complainant") filed a 

Complaint dated March 9, 2010. Newly Weds Foods, Inc., (hereinafter referred to as "Respondent") 

filed a Request for Hearing dated February 23, 2010. Respondent thereafter filed an Answer dated 

April 6,2010. 

On May 11, 2010, Respondent asked to withdraw its Request for hearing, citing settlement. 

14 C.F.R. § 13.215 states: "At any time before or during a hearing, an agency attorney may 

withdraw a complaint or party may withdraw a request for a hearing without the consent of 

the administrative law judge. If an agency attorney withdraws the complaint or a party 

withdraws the request for a hearing and the answer, the administrative law judge shall dismiss 

the proceedings under this subpart with prejudice." 

WHEREFORE, the Respondent's request to withdraw its Request for Hearing having been 

read and considered, it is ORDERED as follows: 

1. Respondent's request to withdraw its Request for Hearing be and is hereby granted; 

and 

Receding be and is hereby dismissed with prejudice. 

Rj^haraC Goodwill 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Attachments - Service List 
FAA Docket No. CP10SW0003 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building - Suite 2W1000' 

ONE COPY 

John J. Seely, Respondent 

Senior Vice President 

Newly Weds Foods 

4140 W. Fullerton Avenue 

Chicago, IL 60639 

TEL: 773-292-3815 

FAX: 773-292-2423 

James Archier, Complainant's Counsel 

Office of the Regional Counsel, ASW-7 

Southwest Region 

Federal Aviation Administration 

2601 Meacham Blvd., Suite 6E 

Fort Worth, TX 76193-0007 

TEL: 817-222-5099 

FAX: 817-222-5945/5092 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

East Building Ground Floor, Room El2-320 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: Attorney-Advisor 202-366-2139 

Legal Assistant 202-366-5121 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

' Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: 

Hearing Docket, Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building - Room 

2014, Washington, DC 20591, Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
EXHIBIT 32  SECTION 906 CERTIFICATIONS

Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in his capacity
as an officer of Provena Foods Inc. (the Company), that, to his knowledge, the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2006, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.

Date: November 2, 2006



|                                           
|-------------------------------------------
|/s/ Theodore L. Arena                      
|Theodore L. Arena, Chief Executive Officer 
|                                           
|/s/ Thomas J. Mulroney                     
|Thomas J. Mulroney, Chief Financial Officer
§ 500.86 Marker residue and target tissue. ( a ) For each edible tissue, the sponsor shall measure the depletion of the residue of carcinogenic concern until its concentration is at or below Sm.
( b ) In one or more edible tissues, the sponsor shall also measure the depletion of one or more potential marker residues until the concentration of the residue of carcinogenic concern is at or below Sm.
( c ) From these data, FDA will select a target tissue and a marker residue and designate the concentration of marker residue (Rm) that the regulatory method must be capable of measuring in the target tissue. FDA will select Rm such that the absence of the marker residue in the target tissue above Rm can be taken as confirmation that the residue of carcinogenic concern does not exceed Sm in each of the edible tissues and, therefore, that the residue of carcinogenic concern in the diet of people does not exceed So.
( d ) When a compound is to be used in milk- or egg-producing animals, milk or eggs must be the target tissue in addition to the tissue selected to monitor for residues in the edible carcass.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0910-0228)