alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2016270EN.01004401.xml

| 25.7.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 270/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.7.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 270/44

---

Order of the General Court of 9 June 2016 — IREPA v Commission and Court of Auditors

(Case T-825/14) (1)

1

((Action for annulment - Fishing - Italian National Fisheries Data Collection Programme for the period 2009-2010 - Recovery of a part of the advances paid to the applicant - Court of Auditors’ preliminary report - Measure not open to challenge - Preparatory measure - Pre-information letters - Debit note - Fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU - Lack of direct concern - Inadmissibility))

(2016/C 270/50)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Istituto di ricerche economiche per la pesca e l’acquacoltura — IREPA Onlus (Salerno, Italy) (represented by: F. Tedeschini, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendants: European Commission (represented by: F. Moro, D. Nardi and K. Walkerová, acting as Agents), and Court of Auditors of the European Union (represented by: N. Scafarto and L. Massocchi, acting as Agents)

Defendants:

Re:

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and asking for the annulment of the decision which contained the debit note of 30 September 2014 issued by the Commission for the recovery of the amount of EUR 458 347,35, the Court of Auditors’ report of 27 February 2013, the Commission’s letters of 12 July 2013 and 6 August 2014 and of any other prior, related, or in any event subsequent measure, even unknown, affecting the applicant’s legal financial situation.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as being inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as being inadmissible.

| 2. | Istituto di ricerche economiche per la pesca e l’acquacoltura — IREPA Onlus shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission and the Court of Auditors of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Istituto di ricerche economiche per la pesca e l’acquacoltura — IREPA Onlus shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission and the Court of Auditors of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ C 65, 23.2.2015.

1

---
REVISION A • 09/01/2008
REVISION A • 09/01/2008
REVISION A • 09/01/2008
REVISION A • 09/01/2008
REVISION A • 09/01/2008
REVISION A • 09/01/2008
REVISION A • 09/01/2008
REVISION A • 09/01/2008
REVISION A • 09/01/2008
REVISION A • 09/01/2008
REVISION A • 09/01/2008
REVISION A • 09/01/2008
REVISION A • 09/01/2008
REVISION A • 09/01/2008
REVISION A • 09/01/2008
REVISION A • 09/01/2008
REVISION A • 09/01/2008
REVISION A • 09/01/2008
REVISION A • 09/01/2008
REVISION A • 09/01/2008
REVISION A • 09/01/2008
REVISION A • 09/01/2008
REVISION A • 09/01/2008
REVISION A • 09/01/2008
REVISION A • 09/01/2008
REVISION A • 09/01/2008
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, DC 

In the Matter of: TRANS NORTH AVIATION, LTD. 

FAA Order No. 2014-4 

FDMS No. FAA-2013-00461 

Served: December 4, 2014 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL' 

By notice served on December 1, 2014, Complainant withdrew its complaint in this 

matter. Subsequently, Trans North Aviation filed a motion to dismiss the proceedings with 

prejudice, based upon Complainant's withdrawal of its complaint, the order assessing civil 

penalty and the final notice of proposed civil penalty." Complainant has filed a motion in 

support of Trans North Aviation's motion to dismiss this action with prejudice. 

THL'REFORE. IT IS ORDERED THAT. 

The complaint and the proceedings are dismissed with prejudice. 

MICHAEL P.I!UERTA, ADMINISTRATOR 

P ederal Aviation Administration 

-? ~~ //> cyt: .. y;:£;J_.~~::::~~"-~---, .. __ ,.%{. J '---~_/1 /" 1 '~, .,.) 

VICKI S. LEEMON3 ~-

Manager, Adjudication Branch 

1 Generally, materials filed in the FAA Hearing Docket are also available for viewing at 

http://www.regulations.gov. 14 C.F.R. § 13.210(e)(l). 

2 The Administrator's civil penalty decisions, along with indexes of the decisions, the rules of 

practice, and other information, are available on the Internet at the following address: 

www.faa.gov/abuut/ojfice __ orglheadquarters .. C<fficeslagc/pol_ adjudication/A GC 400/Civil _Penalty/. See 

14 C.P.R.§ 13.210(e)(2). In addition, Thomson Reuters/West Publishing publishes Federal Aviation 

Decisions. Finally, the decisions are available through LEXIS (TRANS library) and WestLaw (FTRANFAA database). For additional information, see the Web site. 

1 Issued under authority delegated to the Chief Counsel and the Assistant Chief Counsel for 

Litigation by memorandum dated October 27, !992, under 49 U.S.C. § 322(b) and 14 C.F.R. § 13.202 

(see 57 Fed. Reg. 58.280 ( 1992)) and redelegated by the Assistant Chief Counsel for Litigation to the 

Manager, Adjudication Branch, by Memorandum dated August 6, 1993.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-03-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-05-1998
<CASH>                                          13,233
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,853
<ALLOWANCES>                                        56
<INVENTORY>                                      4,805
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                30,025
<PP&E>                                         321,572
<DEPRECIATION>                                 118,788
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 243,451
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           39,588
<BONDS>                                         16,137
<COMMON>                                         2,222
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            2,262
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                     177,853
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   243,451
<SALES>                                        191,882
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               193,950
<CGS>                                           88,248
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  162,923
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,379
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 31,027
<INCOME-TAX>                                    12,003
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             19,024
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    19,024
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.01
        

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

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000814070
<NAME> DRY DAIRY INTERNATIONAL INC.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           (182)
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   39,491
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     49,848
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                89,157
<PP&E>                                         587,567
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 676,724
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          855,377
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     2,657,893
<OTHER-SE>                                 (2,888,653)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   676,724
<SALES>                                        591,806
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               617,902
<CGS>                                          363,206
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  469,259
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 6,939
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              20,828
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (296,931)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (296,931)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.01)


</TABLE>
Editorial Note on Part 862
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 862 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 862.9 Limitations of exemptions from section 510(k) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act). The exemption from the requirement of premarket notification (section 510(k) of the act) for a generic type of class I or II device is only to the extent that the device has existing or reasonably foreseeable characteristics of commercially distributed devices within that generic type or, in the case of in vitro diagnostic devices, only to the extent that misdiagnosis as a result of using the device would not be associated with high morbidity or mortality. Accordingly, manufacturers of any commercially distributed class I or II device for which FDA has granted an exemption from the requirement of premarket notification must still submit a premarket notification to FDA before introducing or delivering for introduction into interstate commerce for commercial distribution the device when: ( a ) The device is intended for a use different from the intended use of a legally marketed device in that generic type of device; e.g., the device is intended for a different medical purpose, or the device is intended for lay use where the former intended use was by health care professionals only;
( b ) The modified device operates using a different fundamental scientific technology than a legally marketed device in that generic type of device; e.g., a surgical instrument cuts tissue with a laser beam rather than with a sharpened metal blade, or an in vitro diagnostic device detects or identifies infectious agents by using deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) probe or nucleic acid hybridization technology rather than culture or immunoassay technology; or
( c ) The device is an in vitro device that is intended: ( 1 ) For use in the diagnosis, monitoring, or screening of neoplastic diseases with the exception of immunohistochemical devices;
( 2 ) For use in screening or diagnosis of familial or acquired genetic disorders, including inborn errors of metabolism;
( 3 ) For measuring an analyte that serves as a surrogate marker for screening, diagnosis, or monitoring life-threatening diseases such as acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS), chronic or active hepatitis, tuberculosis, or myocardial infarction or to monitor therapy;
( 4 ) For assessing the risk of cardiovascular diseases;
( 5 ) For use in diabetes management;
( 6 ) For identifying or inferring the identity of a microorganism directly from clinical material;
( 7 ) For detection of antibodies to microorganisms other than immunoglobulin G (IgG) or IgG assays when the results are not qualitative, or are used to determine immunity, or the assay is intended for use in matrices other than serum or plasma;
( 8 ) For noninvasive testing as defined in § 812.3(k) of this chapter; and
( 9 ) For near patient testing (point of care).
[65 FR 2304, Jan. 14, 2000]
Exhibit



                                                




                                            



        Exhibit 10.1
SOTHEBY’S NEVADA, INC.
1334 York Avenue
New York, New York 10021


 
March 27, 2017


Acquavella Contemporary Art, Inc.
c/o Mr. William R. Acquavella
18 East 79th Street
New York, New York 10075


Dear Bill:


This letter agreement amends the Agreement of Partnership (the “Partnership Agreement”) of Acquavella Modern Art, a Nevada general partnership, dated May 29, 1990, between Sotheby’s Nevada, Inc., a Nevada corporation (“Sotheby’s Partner”), and Acquavella Contemporary Art, Inc., a Nevada corporation (“Acquavella Partner”).


By prior letters of amendment, we have agreed to extend the term of the Partnership Agreement through March 31, 2017.  By this letter of amendment, we are agreeing to extend the term of the Partnership Agreement through May 1, 2017.  Accordingly, each of the Sotheby’s Partner and the Acquavella Partner hereby agree to amend Section 1.5(iii) of the Partnership Agreement, as heretofore amended, to delete the reference to March  31, 2017 and substitute therefor the date of “May 1, 2017.”


Except as amended hereby, the Partnership Agreement shall remain in full force and effect and is hereby ratified and confirmed.


Please sign this letter agreement in the space provided below.  Upon execution on behalf of the Acquavella Partner, this letter agreement shall be effective as of the date of this letter.


SOTHEBY’S NEVADA, INC.


 
By: /s/ Jonathan Olsoff_______________________________ 


Jonathan Olsoff, Vice President






AGREED AND ACCEPTED:  

ACQUAVELLA CONTEMPORARY ART, INC.








                                                




                                            



By:_/s/ William R. Acquavella_______________________________  


William R. Acquavella, President
# C_2014151EN.01001401.xml

| 19.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 151/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 151/14

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 23 de Madrid (Spain) lodged on 11 March 2014 — Grima Janet Nisttahuz Poclava v José María Ariza Toledano (Taberna del Marqués)

(Case C-117/14)

2014/C 151/17

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Social No 23 de Madrid

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Grima Janet Nisttahuz Poclava

Applicant:

Defendant: José María Ariza Toledano (Taberna del Marqués)

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Is national legislation under which employment contracts of indefinite duration to support entrepreneurs are made subject to a probationary period of one year, during which the employee may freely be dismissed, contrary to EU law, and is it compatible with the fundamental right guaranteed by Article 30 (1) of the [Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union]? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is national legislation under which employment contracts of indefinite duration to support entrepreneurs are made subject to a probationary period of one year, during which the employee may freely be dismissed, contrary to EU law, and is it compatible with the fundamental right guaranteed by Article 30 (1) of the [Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union]?

1

| 2. | Is the probationary period of one year to which employment contracts of indefinite duration to support entrepreneurs are made subject prejudicial to the objectives of, and to the rules laid down in, Directive 1999/70/EC (2) concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP — clauses 1 and 3? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the probationary period of one year to which employment contracts of indefinite duration to support entrepreneurs are made subject prejudicial to the objectives of, and to the rules laid down in, Directive 1999/70/EC (2) concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP — clauses 1 and 3?

2

---

(1)  OJ 2000, C 364, p. 1.

1

(2)  OJ L 175, p. 43.

2

---
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

May 21, 2012 

p0514 

Order 

 

May 21, 2012 

144420 

GRADY V. HUDSON, 

Plaintiff, 

v SC: 144420 

 AGC: 0892-11 

ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION, 

Defendant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On the order of the Court, the complaint for superintending control is considered, 

and relief is DENIED, because the Court is not persuaded that it should grant the 

requested relief.
Exhibit 23




(philip vogel
              12400
      COIT ROADSUITE
      1000DALLAS,
      TEXAS 75251-2005214/346-5800
      Fax: 214/346-5899E-mail:
      firm@philipvogel.com




Consent
of Independent
Auditors




The
Board of Directors Preferred
Voice, Inc.




We hereby
consent to the use in the Form 10-KSB filing of our report dated June 12, 2009,
relating to the balance sheet of Preferred Voice, Inc. as of March 31, 2009, and
the related statements of operations, changes in shareholders’ equity, and cash
flows for the year ended March 31, 2009, which are contained in that
filing.


GRAPHICPhilip
      Vogel & Co. PC




Dallas,
Texas




June 12,
2009




Members:
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants • Texas Society of Certified
Public Accountants CPA
Associates International, Inc. with Associated Offices in Principal U.S. and
International Cities
§ 822.7 What should I do if I do not agree that postmarket surveillance is appropriate? ( a ) If you do not agree with our decision to order postmarket surveillance for a particular device, you may request review of our decision by: ( 1 ) Requesting a meeting with the Director of the Office that issued the order for postmarket surveillance;
( 2 ) Seeking internal review of the order under § 10.75 of this chapter;
( 3 ) Requesting an informal hearing under part 16 of this chapter; or
( 4 ) Requesting review by the Medical Devices Dispute Resolution Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee.
( b ) You may obtain guidance documents that discuss these mechanisms from the Center for Devices and Radiological Health's (CDRH's) Web site (*http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/OfficeofMedicalProductsandTobacco/CDRH/CDRHOmbudsman/default.htm .*).
[67 FR 38887, June 6, 2002, as amended at 72 FR 17399, Apr. 9, 2007; 78 FR 18233, Mar. 26, 2013; 85 FR 18843, Apr. 2, 2020; 88 FR 16880, Mar. 21, 2023]
Exhibit 19

 Annual report of Accountants with respect to the servicing of the contracts by
           the Servicer, pursuant to the Sale and Servicing Agreement

                          Independent Auditors' Report

The Board of Directors
The CIT Group, Inc.:

      We have examined management's assertion about The CIT Group/Sales
Financing, Inc. and The CIT Group/Consumer Finance, Inc.'s (the Companies), both
wholly-owned subsidiaries of The CIT Group, Inc., compliance with the minimum
servicing standards identified in the Mortgage Bankers Association of America's
Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers as of and for the year
ended December 31, 1999 included in the accompanying management assertion.
Management is responsible for the Companies' compliance with those minimum
servicing standards. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's
assertion about the Companies' compliance based on our examination.

      Our examination was made in accordance with standards established by the
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and, accordingly, included
examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Companies' compliance with the
minimum servicing standards and performing such other procedures as we
considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our examination
provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a
legal determination on the Companies' compliance with the minimum servicing
standards.

      In our opinion, management's assertion that the Companies have complied in
all material respects with the aforementioned minimum servicing standards as of
and for the year ended December 31, 1999 is fairly stated, in all material
respects.

                                                      /s/ KPMG LLP

March 31, 2000
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

LANIER RILEY,

Petitioner

v.

JOHN TALABER, ESQ.,

Defendant

SECRETARY PENNSYLVANIA BOARD

OF PROBATION AND PAROLE, ET AL.,

Respondents :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 73 EM 2017

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 1st day of August , 2017, the Application for Leave to File

Original Process is GRANTED

, and the Petition for W r i t of Mandamus is DENIED

.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-1996
<CASH>                                       2,368,395
<SECURITIES>                                   250,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,054,044
<ALLOWANCES>                                   163,633
<INVENTORY>                                  6,343,731
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            12,154,268
<PP&E>                                      12,465,865
<DEPRECIATION>                               8,372,733
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              16,961,105
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,323,640
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        52,587
<OTHER-SE>                                  12,925,471
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                16,961,105
<SALES>                                     47,722,988
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            47,722,988
<CGS>                                       38,290,812
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               38,290,812
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (54,047)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               163,633
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             377,528
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              4,557,666
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,552,207
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          3,005,459
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                296,291
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,301,750
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .65
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .65
        

</TABLE>
#### State of Connecticut *v.*Herman Keeby

*Herman Keeby,*pro se, on the motion.

Submitted June 19

decided July 1, 1969

The motion by the defendant for a writ of mandamus and a disclosure of the progress of his appeal from the Superior Court in New London County is dismissed.