alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2018408EN.01000601.xml

| 12.11.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 408/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.11.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 408/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 19 September 2018 — European Commission v French Republic, IFP Énergies nouvelles

(Case C-438/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - State aid - State aid scheme implemented by France - Unlimited State guarantee conferred on the Institut français du pétrole (IFP) by the grant of the status of publicly owned industrial and commercial establishment (EPIC) - Decision declaring that measure as partially not constituting State aid and as partially constituting State aid compatible with the Internal market, subject to certain conditions - Concept of ‘aid scheme’ - Presumption of the existence of an advantage - Burden and standard of proof))

(2018/C 408/04)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: B. Stromsky and D. Grespan, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: French Republic (represented by: D. Colas and J. Bousin, acting as Agents), IFP Énergies nouvelles (represented by: E. Morgan de Rivery and E. Lagathu, avocats)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 26 May 2016, France and IFP Énergies nouvelles v Commission (T-479/11 and T-157/12, EU:T:2016:320), in so far as, by that judgment, the General Court annulled Article 1(3), (4) and (5) and Articles 2 to 12 of Commission Decision 2012/26/EU of 29 June 2011 on State aid granted by France to the Institut Français du Pétrole (Case C 35/08 (ex NN 11/08)); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 26 May 2016, France and IFP Énergies nouvelles v Commission (T-479/11 and T-157/12, EU:T:2016:320), in so far as, by that judgment, the General Court annulled Article 1(3), (4) and (5) and Articles 2 to 12 of Commission Decision 2012/26/EU of 29 June 2011 on State aid granted by France to the Institut Français du Pétrole (Case C 35/08 (ex NN 11/08));

| 2. | Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union;

| 3. | Reserves the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Reserves the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 392, 24.10.2016.

---
EXHIBIT 32.1

SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 1350, the undersigned officer of GMX Resources Inc. (the Company), hereby certifies that the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2010 (the Report) fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

Date: October 27, 2011



/s/ Ken L. Kenworthy, JrKen L. Kenworthy, Jr. Chief
Executive Officer
No. 62457.

#### Gehrig, Hoban & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 319106-K (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

The protest was dismissed.
Before the Third Division,

November 25, 1958

No. 62473.

#### United China & Glass Company *v.*United States,

protests 58/2232, 58/2239, and 58/2242 (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of decorated earthenware trays for condiment sets and that if said articles were now before the examiner for examination he would classify them as claimed, the protests were sustained.
No. 56328.

protests 174794-K, etc. (New York).

#### British Overseas Airways Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Rao, J.

The protests were dismissed.
Order issued October 30, 2012

In The

Qrtntrt uf \ppcahi

ift1! Oiitrirt uf Jixiu at afta

No. 05-i 1-01259-CV

DELCOM GROUP, LP, Appellant

V.

DALLAS INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT AND

R.L.S. INTERESTS, INC. D/B/A PRIME SYSTEMS, INC., Appellees

ORDER

Before Justices O’Neill, Francis, and Murphy

Appellant’s September 4, 2012 motion for rehearing is DENIED.

MOLLY FÜNCIS

JUSTICE
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

 

MIRIAN SCHVOM, et al.,

 Plaintiffs,

 v.

MCNEIL-PPC, INC. 

 Defendant.

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

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF

ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL NO.

2270,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

MCNEIL-PPC, INC. 

 Defendant.

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

ANDREW BEHREND, 

 Plainitff,

 v.

MCNEIL-PPC, INC. 

 Defendant.

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

ROBERT K. ALDERMAN,

 Plainitff,

 v.

MCNEIL-PPC, INC. 

 Defendant.

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

CYNTHIA B. GOEPEL,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

MCNEIL-PPC, INC. 

 Defendant.

 

 CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-4093

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

 CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-4105

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

 CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-4149

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

 CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-4180

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

 CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-4197

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 6th day of March, 2003, it is hereby ORDERED that counsel shall

report to the court by a single jointly signed submission stating their respective positions regarding the

Case 2:02-cv-04149-MK Document 8 Filed 03/07/2003 Page 1 of 2
2

status of the above captioned matter by April 6, 2003. Counsel are requested to discuss settlement with

each other and their respective clients before reporting to the court.

BY THE COURT:

_________________________________

MARVIN KATZ, S.J.

Case 2:02-cv-04149-MK Document 8 Filed 03/07/2003 Page 2 of 2
# C_2015089EN.01003702.xml

| 16.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 89/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 89/37

---

Action brought on 26 January 2015 — Grupo Bimbo v OHIM (BIMBO)

(Case T-33/15)

(2015/C 089/45)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Grupo Bimbo, SAB de CV (Mexico, Mexico) (represented by: N. Fernández Fernández-Pacheco, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Defendant:

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Trade mark at issue: Community work mark ‘BIMBO’ — Application for registration No 11 616 414

Trade mark at issue:

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 November 2014 in Case R 251/2014-2

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision, declaring in its judgment the sufficient distinctiveness, whether inherent or acquired by use, of the mark applied for, upholding the present action and ordering the registration of Community trade mark application No 11 616 414 ‘BIMBO’ in Class 30 of the International Classification; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision, declaring in its judgment the sufficient distinctiveness, whether inherent or acquired by use, of the mark applied for, upholding the present action and ordering the registration of Community trade mark application No 11 616 414 ‘BIMBO’ in Class 30 of the International Classification; and

| — | order the party opposing that claim to pay the costs of the proceedings and to reimburse the appeal fees paid to OHIM. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the party opposing that claim to pay the costs of the proceedings and to reimburse the appeal fees paid to OHIM.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c), (2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c), (2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
**Exhibit 31.2**
CERTIFICATION
I, Charles P. Huffman, certify that:
1.     I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of EnergySouth, Inc.(the “Registrant”);
2.     Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterlyreport;
3.     Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theRegistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;
4.     The Registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and have:
(a)     Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theRegistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made knownto us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this quarterly report is being prepared;
(b)     Evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this quarterly report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this quarterlyreport based on such evaluation; and
(c)     Disclosed in this quarterly report any change in theRegistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurredduring the Registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the Registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,the Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;
5.     The Registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theRegistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the Registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
(a)     All significant deficiencies in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the Registrant’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information; and
(b)     Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the Registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.        Date: May 17, 2004 /s/  Charles P. Huffman   Charles P. Huffman   Senior Vice President and
# 2015_06 Pivot Table 5A

# 2015_06 Pivot Table 5A (2)

# Table 5

&F	

&P/&N
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 904 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 904

Expressing support for the designation of the first Tuesday in June as 
          ``National Cancer Survivor Beauty and Support Day''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 18, 2018

 Mr. Schneider (for himself and Mr. Huizenga) submitted the following 
   resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and 
                           Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Expressing support for the designation of the first Tuesday in June as 
          ``National Cancer Survivor Beauty and Support Day''.

Whereas it is estimated that 1,735,350 new cases of cancer will be diagnosed in 
        the United States in 2018;
Whereas the lifetime probability of a male or female developing cancer is 1 in 
        3;
Whereas a cancer survivor is defined as anyone who has been diagnosed with 
        cancer, from the time of diagnosis through the balance of his or her 
        life;
Whereas the National Cancer Institute reports that there are 15,500,000 cancer 
        survivors in the United States;
Whereas cancer treatments can have severe, prolonged, or permanent side effects, 
        both physical and psychological;
Whereas men, women, and children all have been diagnosed with and battled 
        cancer;
Whereas it is important to recognize the value of support for all men, women, 
        and children cancer survivors and the positive impact support has for 
        both patients and families;
Whereas ``Cancer Survivor Beauty and Support Day'' is a purely volunteer event 
        where thousands of volunteers from the spa, beauty, and related 
        industries freely give their support and services to all cancer 
        survivors;
Whereas ``Cancer Survivor Beauty and Support Day'' has expanded to thousands of 
        salons in all 50 States since its inception in 2003;
Whereas ``Cancer Survivor Beauty and Support Day'' is recognized by both State 
        and local governments;
Whereas ``Cancer Survivor Beauty and Support Day'' is the only event of its 
        kind, with no solicitation of funds either before, during, or after the 
        event; and
Whereas the first Tuesday in June would be an appropriate date to designate as 
        ``National Cancer Survivor Beauty and Support Day'': Now, therefore, be 
        it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives supports the 
designation of ``National Cancer Survivor Beauty and Support Day''.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit99.2**

 

**Annual Officer’s Certificate ofCompliance of Servicer to the Issuer, the IndentureTrustee and the Insurer pursuant to Section 3.09 of the Sale and ServicingAgreements of the Onyx Acceptance Owner Trusts 2005-B**

 

I, David Lawson,Chairman, and I, Patrick Gray, Assistant Vice President, of Onyx AcceptanceCorporation (the “Servicer”) hereby certify that:

 

(a)           areview of the activities of the Servicer during thepreceding fiscal year (or, since the Closing Date as applicable) and of itsperformance under each Sale and Servicing Agreement as amended or supplemented (each, an “Agreement”) has been madeunder our supervision; and

(b)          tothe best of our knowledge, based on such review, the Servicerhas performed in all material respects its obligations under this Agreementthroughout such year and that no material default under this Agreement hasoccurred and is continuing.

 

Capitalized terms usedherein and not otherwise defined shall have the meanings given them in theapplicable Agreement.

 

Dated:  March 29, 2006

 

# **Onyx AcceptanceCorporation, as Servicer**

 
| By: /s/ David Lawson             |   |
|----------------------------------|--------|
| Name: David Lawson               |
| Title: Chairman                  |
|                             |
|                             |
| By: /s/ Patrick Gray             |   |
| Name: Patrick Gray               |
| Title: Assistant Vice  President |
|                                  |        |  |

 

----
# C_2017392EN.01001001.xml

| 20.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 392/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 392/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 21 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Łodzi — Poland) — Małgorzata Ciupa and Others v II Szpital Miejski im. L. Rydygiera w Łodzi, now Szpital Ginekologiczno-Położniczy im. dr L. Rydygiera sp. z o.o. w Łodzi

(Case C-429/16) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Collective redundancies - Directive 98/59/EC - Article 1(1) and Article 2 - Concept of ‘redundancies’ - Assimilation to redundancies of ‘terminations of an employment contract which occur on the employer’s initiative’ - Unilateral amendment by the employer of working and pay conditions - Determination of the employer’s ‘intention’ to effect redundancies))

(2017/C 392/13)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy w Łodzi

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Małgorzata Ciupa, Jolanta Deszczka, Ewa Kowalska, Anna Stańczyk, Marta Krzesińska, Marzena Musielak, Halina Kaźmierska, Joanna Siedlecka, Szymon Wiaderek, Izabela Grzegora

Applicants:

Defendant: II Szpital Miejski im. L. Rydygiera w Łodzi, now Szpital Ginekologiczno-Położniczy im. dr L. Rydygiera sp. z o.o. w Łodzi

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(1) of Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies must be interpreted as meaning that a unilateral amendment of conditions of pay by the employer, to the detriment of the employees, which, in the event of an employee’s refusal, entails the termination of the contract of employment is capable of being regarded as a ‘redundancy’ within the meaning of that provision, and Article 2 of that directive must be interpreted as meaning that an employer is required to carry out the consultations provided for in Article 2 where he contemplates effecting such a unilateral amendment of the conditions of pay, in so far as the conditions laid down in Article 1 of the directive are satisfied, which is for the referring court to ascertain.

---

(1)  OJ C 392, 24.10.2016.

1

---
Electronically Filed 

Supreme Court 

SCPW-12-0000403 

26-APR-2012 

11:49 AM 

NO. SCPW-12-0000403
 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I
 

ELIZABETH FISHER, Petitioner,
 

vs.
 

THE HONORABLE HILARY B. GANGNES, JUDGE OF THE DISTRICT


COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT, STATE OF HAWAI'I; and


LORNA SOUZA, Respondents.
 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
 

(CIVIL NO. 1RC12-1-00925)
 

ORDER
 

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, Duffy, and McKenna, JJ.)
 

Upon consideration of petitioner Elizabeth Fisher's 

petition for a writ of mandamus and the papers in support, it 

appears that the denials of petitioner's motions to quash service 

of the complaint and summons are reviewable on appeal from a 

judgment for possession that may be entered in Civil No. 1RC12-1­

00925. See Ciesla v. Reddish, 78 Hawai'i 18, 889 P.2d 702 

(1995). Petitioner can obtain appellate review of the matters 

raised in the motions to quash by appealing from a judgment for 

possession and seeking a stay of the judgment pending appeal 

pursuant to HRAP Rule 8. Therefore, petitioner is not entitled 

to mandamus relief. See Kema v. Gaddis, 91 Hawai'i 200, 204, 982 
P.2d 334, 338 (1999) (A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary
 

remedy that will not issue unless the petitioner demonstrates a
 

clear and indisputable right to relief and a lack of alternative
 

means to redress adequately the alleged wrong or obtain the
 

requested action. Such writs are not intended to supersede the
 

legal discretionary authority of the lower courts, nor are they
 

intended to serve as legal remedies in lieu of normal appellate
 

procedures). Accordingly,
 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of
 

mandamus is denied.
 

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, April 26, 2012. 

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald 

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama 

/s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr. 

/s/ James E. Duffy, Jr. 

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
 

2
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT 0F 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Bear Island Paper Company LLC (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Peter M. Brant, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, 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 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 as of, and for, the periods
presented in this Report.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



By:

/s/ Peter M. BrantPeter M. BrantChief Executive OfficerNovember 8, 2004




This certification accompanies
the Report pursuant to § 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 filed by the Company for purposes of § 18 of the Securities Act of 1934, as amended.



13
Exhibit 12.2

CERTIFICATION

I, Helmut Perlet, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Allianz SE;

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 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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) 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) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our
supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;

(c) 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

(d) 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 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 the 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: March 31, 2009



/s/ Dr. Helmut PerletDr. Helmut PerletChief Financial Officer