alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2017104EN.01004101.xml

| 3.4.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 104/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/41

---

Judgment of the General Court of 17 February 2017 — Mayer v EFSA

(Case T-493/14) (1)

1

((Seconded national expert - EFSA rules on SNEs - Decision not to extend the secondment - Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Refusal to grant access - Exception relating to the protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual - Protection of personal data - Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 - Applications for a declaration and seeking the issue of directions - Written pleadings supplementing the originating application - Amendments to the heads of claim - Admissibility))

(2017/C 104/57)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Ingrid Alice Mayer (Ellwangen, Germany) (represented by: T. Mayer, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant): European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) (represented by: D. Detken, acting as Agent, R. Van der Hout and A. Köhler, lawyers)

Defendant):

Re:

Re:

Action brought under Article 263 TFEU challenging the decisions of EFSA, first, dismissing the applicant’s request to extend her secondment as a national expert at EFSA and, second, refusing her request for access to documents held by EFSA

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

| 2. | Orders Ingrid Alice Mayer to pay the costs, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ingrid Alice Mayer to pay the costs, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures;

---

(1)  OJ C 329, 22.9.2014.

1

---
March 22, 2012

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

CHRISTOPHER MOUTON, Appellant

NO. 14-11-00295-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

____________________

This cause was heard on the record of the court below. Having considered the 

record, this Court holds that there was no error in the judgment. The Court orders the 

judgment AFFIRMED, that the appellant pay all costs expended in this appeal, and that 

this decision be certified below for observance.
THIS ADVERTISEMENT PREPARED BY FC

Client Folder: IRS

Doc.Name: P1803_

Date: 05/20/04

Fonts:

Software: Quark, 

A.D.: N McMayo 3

A.E.: Kristin Stefa

D laffan 3975

Production: Erin 

Traffic: Galina Ma

Project Manager: 

Artist(s): sk

Notes:

Proof Number: 1

Job #: IRS_EITC P1803 A

P.O.

Client: IRS

Product: Tear Pad

Headline: Thank you

Visual: Note pad

Pub:

Space Description: 1/c K

Size: Trim: 4 x 6

In the meantime, do not hesitate to call me 

have any questions or would like to discuss y

tax needs further. 

Sincerely,

Publication 4339 Catalog Numb
Editorial Note on Part 866
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 866 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 866.5100 Antinuclear antibody immunological test system. ( a ) *Identification.* An antinuclear antibody immunological test system is a device that consists of the reagents used to measure by immunochemical techniques the autoimmune antibodies in serum, other body fluids, and tissues that react with cellular nuclear constituents (molecules present in the nucleus of a cell, such as ribonucleic acid, deoxyribonucleic acid, or nuclear proteins). The measurements aid in the diagnosis of systemic lupus erythematosus (a multisystem autoimmune disease in which antibodies attack the victim's own tissues), hepatitis (a liver disease), rheumatoid arthritis, Sjögren's syndrome (arthritis with inflammation of the eye, eyelid, and salivary glands), and systemic sclerosis (chronic hardening and shrinking of many body tissues).
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (performance standards).
##### 



Exhibit 32.2 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 Annual Report of Ambassadors International, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the
undersigned, Brian R. Schaefgen, Chief Financial Officer of the Company
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13a-14(b)
or 15d-14(b) 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. /s/ Brian R. Schaefgen  
 58
# C_2014085EN.01002702.xml

| 22.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 85/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 85/27

---

Action brought on 17 January 2014 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-5/14)

2014/C 85/47

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: É. Boigelot, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application to annul the Commission’s decision to remove the applicant from his post under Article 9(1)(h) of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations without reduction of his pension rights following an internal investigation begun following an investigation by OLAF opened against an undertaking, and the claim for damages and interest for the non-financial and financial harm allegedly suffered.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision adopted on 16 October 2013, notified at the applicant’s residence on 18 October thereafter by the Commission Security Service, taken by the tripartite AA in Case CMS 12/042, under which ‘Mr ZZ is removed from his post under Article 9(1)(h) of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations without reduction of his pension rights’ and taking ‘effect in the month following the date of his signature’; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision adopted on 16 October 2013, notified at the applicant’s residence on 18 October thereafter by the Commission Security Service, taken by the tripartite AA in Case CMS 12/042, under which ‘Mr ZZ is removed from his post under Article 9(1)(h) of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations without reduction of his pension rights’ and taking ‘effect in the month following the date of his signature’;

| — | order the Commission to pay EUR 33 000, by way of compensation for non-material, medical, family, professional and material damage and the adverse effect on the applicant’s career, provisionally set at EUR 1 on an assessed amount, subject to increase or decrease during the proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay EUR 33 000, by way of compensation for non-material, medical, family, professional and material damage and the adverse effect on the applicant’s career, provisionally set at EUR 1 on an assessed amount, subject to increase or decrease during the proceedings;

| — | in any event, order the defendant to pay the entire costs, in accordance with Article 87(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal. |
| --- | --- |

—

in any event, order the defendant to pay the entire costs, in accordance with Article 87(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal.

---
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED MA Y 8, 2015

NO. 03

- 15

- 00165

- CV

NCM Acquisitions, LLC, Appellant

v.

Thomas Dwayne Odell, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 22ND DISTRICT COURT OF HAYS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, PE MBERT ON, AND BOURLAND

DISMISSED ON APPELLANT’S MOTION

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE PURYEAR

This is an appeal from the interlocutory order signed by the tr i a l court on February 24, 2015.

Appellant has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, and having considered the motion, the Court

agrees that the motion should be granted. Therefore, the Court grants the motion and dismisses

the appeal

. Each party shall pay the costs of appeal inc urred by that party, both in this Court and

in the court below.
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            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 CEC  Entertainment,  Inc. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-Q for the quarter  ended March 28, 2004 as filed with the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof (the  "Report"),  the
undersigned  certifies,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 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.



                                             /s/ Christopher D. Morris
                                             ------------------------------
                                             Christopher D. Morris
                                             Chief Financial Officer
                                             May 6, 2004



A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to CEC  Entertainment,  Inc. and will be retained by CEC Entertainment,
Inc. and furnished to the Securities  and Exchange  Commission or its staff upon
request.
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Staff Report on Employment, Growth, and Price Levels

              																	United States. Congress. Joint Economic Committee, 1956-					 and 	Eighty-Sixth Congress, 1959-1961. 						*Staff Report on Employment, Growth, and Price Levels : Prepared for Consideration by the Joint Economic Committee, Congress of the United States*,												Washington: 								Government Printing Office, 										1959,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/1245,			accessed on September 26, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
# C_2014282EN.01002302.xml

| 25.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 282/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/23

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 5 April 2014 — Pierre Fabre Médicament v Ministre du Budget, des Comptes Publics et de la Réforme de l’État, Ministre des Affaires Sociales et de la Santé

(Case C-273/14)

2014/C 282/29

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Pierre Fabre Médicament

Applicant:

Defendants: Ministre du Budget, des Comptes Publics et de la Réforme de l’État, Ministre des Affaires Sociales et de la Santé

Defendants:

Question referred

Question referred

Do points 3 and 5 of Article 6 of Council Directive 89/105/EEC of 21 December 1988 relating to the transparency of measures regulating the pricing of medicinal products for human use and their inclusion in the scope of national health insurance systems (1) apply to decisions removing a proprietary product from the list of medicinal products administered to inpatients in health establishments that may be covered by compulsory health insurance schemes in addition to hospital treatments covered in the context of fixed payments for stays and care determined by diagnosis related group?

1

---

(1)  OJ 1989 L 40, p. 8.

1

---
Editorial Note on Part 868
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 868 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 868.5110 Oropharyngeal airway. ( a ) *Identification.* An oropharyngeal airway is a device inserted into a patient's pharynx through the mouth to provide a patent airway.
( b ) *Classification.* Class I (general controls). The device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter subject to the limitations in § 868.9.
[47 FR 31142, July 16, 1982, as amended at 61 FR 1120, Jan. 16, 1996; 66 FR 38794, July 25, 2001]
38300 Sierra Highway, Suite A

Palmdale, CA 93550

Re: Final Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permit for Palmdale Hybrid Power

Project

Dear Mr. Williams:

In accordance with the Clean Air Act (CAA), as amended (42 U.S.C 7401 et seq.), the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9 (EPA) has reviewed your application for a CAA

Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit authorizing the construction and operation

of a new 570-megawatt (MW, nominal) natural gas-fired combined-cycle power plant, with an

integrated 50 MW solar-thermal plant, known as the Palmdale Hybrid Power Project (PHPP) in

Palmdale, California.

EPA issued and published requests for public comment regarding EPA’s proposed action on the

above-referenced application in August 2011. EPA received comments during the public

comment period. Enclosed is a copy of our Responses to Comments document for our final

permit decision. After consideration ofthe expressed views of all commenters, the pertinent

Federal statutes and regulations and additional material relevant to the application and contained

in our Administrative Record, the EPA hereby issues the enclosed PSD Permit for the facility

described above. The final permit, Response to Comments document and other key documents

relevant to the final PSD permit are also available online at www.regulations.gov (Docket ID #

EPA-R09-OAR-201 1-0560), with a link from our website at

www.epa. gov/region09/air/perrnit/r9-permits-issued.html#psd.

Within 30 days after the service of notice announcing the EPA’s final permit decision, any

person who filed comments on the proposed permit or participated in the public hearing may

petition the EPA’s Environmental Appeals Board (EAB) to review any condition of the final

permit. The petition must include a statement of the reason(s) for requesting review by the FlAB,

including a demonstration that any issues being raised were raised during the public comment

period to the extent required by the regulations at 40 CFR Part 124 and when appropriate, a

showing that the conditions in question are based on 1) a finding of fact or conclusion of law

which is erroneous, or 2) an exercise of discretion or an important policy consideration which the

EAB should, in its discretion, review. Please see 40 CFR 124.19 and visit

http://www.epa.gov/eab/ for more information regarding the procedures for appeal of a PSD

permit decision to the EAB.

Printed on Recycled Paper
Region 9 Permits Office at (415) 972

3811.

Sincerely,

Director, Air Division

cc: Thomas Barnett, Inland Energy (via email)

Sara Head, AECOM (via email)

Mike Carroll, Latham & Watkins (via email)

Bret Banks, Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District (via email)

Alan De Salvio, Mo] ave Desert Air Quality Management District (via email)

Michael Tolistrup, California Air Resources Board (via email)Matthew Layton, California Energy Commission (via email)

Felicia Miller, California Energy Commission (via email)

2
#### THE BOWERS HYDRAULIC DREDGING COMPANY v. THE UNITED STATES.

[43 C. Cls. R., 214; 211 U. S. R., 176.]

*On the Claimant's Appeal.*

Tlie claimant is to be paid by tbe cubic yard for dredging. Tbe quantity excavated is to be determined by measurements made by tbe engineer in charge before tbe work begins and after it is completed. “ *Worlc Hone outside of the designated lines of excavation or below the specified depth will not he paid for."*Tbe engineer in making measurements treats tbe channel as a prism with vertical sides and horizontal bottom and tbe vertical sides as tbe “ *designated lines of excavation,”*and refuses to allow for “ *slope measurements."*Tbe contractor protests. Tbe decision is made “ *in conformity with the instructions received from the Ghicf of Engineers.”*

The court below decides:

I.A provision in a contract that tbe decision of the engineer in charge is to be final entitles tbe contractor to tbe decision of the engineer, but does not inhibit him from seeking information from bis superior officer upon which to base bis decision, provided, only, that tbe decision rendered by him is bis own. And when tbe facts do not indicate that the engineer’s decision was not his own the court must regard it as final.

II.When tbe contract provides that tbe material removed by dredging “ *will he paid for hy the euhic yard, measured in place hy surveys made before .dredging is commenced and after it is completed,"*it prescribes tbe method by which tbe quantity excavated is to be determined.

III. Under such a contract material falling within the designated lines during the work from tbe sides of the excavation can not be measured in place by tbe surveys prescribed by the contract and consequently is not to be paid for.

IV. Where tbe contract prescribed tbe basis and method of measurement, another method, though customary, can not be the basis of recovery; and expert testimony is not admissible to explain language which needs no explanation.

V.When tbe advertisement to tbe contractors says that the bidders shall be expected to examine tbe drawings and to make estimates'of quantities for themselves, it is their duty to do so before making their bids, and a misunderstanding growing out of their neglect to do so can not prejudice tbe defendants.

*593The decision of the court below is affirmed on the same grounds.

Mr. Justice White delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court November 30, 1908.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

September 14, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

133762 Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan WAYLON E. GEE, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman,
Justices

v SC: 133762 COA: 269351 WCAC: 03-000402 ARTHUR B. MYR INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the applicati on for leave to appeal the March 15, 2007 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered. We direct the Clerk to schedule oral argument on whether to grant the application or take ot her peremptory action. MCR 7.302(G)(1). The parties shall file supplemental briefs within 42 days of the date of this order addressing: (1) whether the WCAC’s April 19, 2002 opinion and order denying plaintiff’s claim for attendant care services under MCL 418.315(1) wa s a final decision; (2) whether plaintiff’s second claim for a ttendant care services a lleged a change in condition as a justification for an award of attendant care services; (3) whether the WCAC's April 12, 2005 opinio n and order awarding attendant care services was based on a change in the plaintiff's condition; and (4 ) whether the WCAC’s Ap ril 12, 2005 opinion
and order awarded attendant care services base d on the plaintiff’s a pplication or on the applications filed by the attendant care prov iders. The parties should not submit mere restatements of their application papers.

t0911 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 14, 2007

Clerk
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

OCT 6 1998

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

RICHARD WALTER JOHNSON,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

GALE A. NORTON, PETER

WARREN BOOTH, GILBERT

MARTINEZ, JOHN WESLEY

ANDERSON, and ATTORNEY

GENERAL FOR THE STATE

OF COLORADO,

Respondents-Appellees.

No. 98-1101

(D.C. No. 98-D-27)

(D. Colo.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before ANDERSON , BARRETT , and TACHA , Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
-2-

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore

ordered submitted without oral argument.

Petitioner Richard Walter Johnson applies for a certificate of appealability

so that he might appeal the district court’s dismissal of his petition for writ of

habeas corpus brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He further requests

permission to proceed on appeal without prepayment of costs or fees. For the

reasons stated below, we deny the application for a certificate of appealability

and dismiss the appeal. We further deny permission to proceed on appeal without

prepayment of costs or fees.

Mr. Johnson is incarcerated in the El Paso County Jail in Colorado Springs,

Colorado. It appears from his § 2254 petition that his conviction was affirmed by

the Colorado Court of Appeals but that Mr. Johnson did not further appeal that

judgment to the Colorado Supreme Court. He did file for state post-conviction

relief, but again failed to appeal the denial of that petition to the highest state

court having jurisdiction over it. For these reasons, the district court denied

Mr. Johnson’s petition for failure to exhaust state remedies. See Rose v. Lundy ,

455 U.S. 509, 515 (1982); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1).

We review the legal basis for the district court’s dismissal of Mr. Johnson’s

§ 2254 petition de novo. See Jackson v. Shanks , 143 F.3d 1313, 1317 (10th Cir.

1998). After review of the materials submitted by Mr. Johnson and the record in
-3-

this case, we find no fault with the order of the district court. Mr. Johnson’s

application for a certificate of appealability is DENIED because he has failed to

make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2). His requests to proceed on appeal without prepayment of costs or

fees and for rehearing and release pending appeal are similarly DENIED.

This appeal is DISMISSED. The mandate shall issue forthwith.

Entered for the Court

James E. Barrett

Senior Circuit Judge