alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2011355EN.01000501.xml

| 3.12.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 355/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.12.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 355/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 October 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Prism Investments BV v J.A. van der Meer, in his capacity as receiver in the liquidation of Arilco Holland BV

(Case C-139/10) (1)

1

(Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Enforcement - Grounds for refusing enforcement - Compliance, in the State in which it was delivered, with the judgment in respect of which the declaration of enforceability is sought)

2011/C 355/07

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Prism Investments BV

Appellant:

Respondent: J.A. van der Meer, in his capacity as receiver in the liquidation of Arilco Holland BV

Respondent:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Interpretation of Articles 34, 35, 43, 44 and 45 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) — Grounds for refusal — Exhaustive list — Performance of the obligation under the national judgment which is the subject of the application for a declaration of enforceability

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 45 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as precluding the court with which an appeal is lodged under Article 43 or Article 44 of that regulation from refusing or revoking a declaration of enforceability of a judgment on a ground other than those set out in Articles 34 and 35 thereof, such as compliance with that judgment in the Member State of origin.

---

(1)  OJ C 134, 22.05.2010.

1

---
No. 64002.

protests 147001-K, etc. (New York).

#### “21” Brands, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Richardson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involve in *United States*v. *R. C. Williams & Co., Inc.*(40 C.C.P.A. 130, C.A.D. 508), and *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C.D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
**AD Economic Evaluation**

Docket No . FAA - 2014 - 0757 Directorate ID : 2014 - SW - 030 - AD Helicopter Model: Airbus Helicopters, Inc., Model EC130B4 Helicopters Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 160 Helicopters in the US Regi stry . Reason : The actions of this AD are intended to detect a crack in the tailboom/Fenestron junction frame, which could result in detachment of the Fenestron and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter. Costs : Parts per Helicopter $ 60,000 for tail boom replacement Labor per Helicopter ( 1 work - hour x $ 8 5 /work hour for the inspection ) (50 work - hour x $85/work hour for the replacement) $ 85 per inspection cycle $4,250 Other (Explain) Total Cost per Helicopter $85 per inspection cycle $64,250 for tailboom replacement Total US Fleet Cost $13,600 per inspection cycle Executive Order 12866 : Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No (  ) DOT Regulatory

Policies and Procedures : Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No (  ) Regulatory

Flexibility

Act : Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Yes ( ) No (  ) Project Engineer : Robert Grant
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A16A1139. A16A1141. ANGELA COLLINS et al. v. XYTEX CORPORATION

et al.

Plaintiffs Angela Collins and Margaret Elizabeth Hanson filed an action

against defendants XytexCorporation,XytexCryo International, LTD, MaryHartley,

(collectively referred to as “Xytex”), and James Christian Aggeles (“the donor”),

alleging the defendants withheld pertinent information and misrepresented

information regarding a sperm donor. Xytex filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’

claims. On October 20, 2015, the trial court granted Xytex’s motion to dismiss and

dismissed all the claims as to all the defendants, including the donor. The plaintiffs

filed a notice of appeal on November 24, 2015.

1 Xytex also filed a cross-appeal

regarding the trial court’s October 20, 2015 order. We, however, lack jurisdiction.

A notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days after the entry of the trial

court’s order. OCGA § 5-6-38 (a). The proper and timely filing of a notice of appeal

is an absolute requirement to confer jurisdiction upon this Court. See Couch v.

United Paperworkers Intl. Union, 224 Ga. App. 721 (482 SE2d 704) (1997). Here,

the plaintiffs filed their notice of appeal 35 days after the trial court’s order was

entered. Accordingly, the plaintiffs’ appeal in A16A1139 is untimely, and it is hereby

DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

Although under OCGA § 5-6-48 (e), a cross-appeal may survive the dismissal

1

It appears from the record that the plaintiffs attempted to file a timely notice

of appeal that was returned by the Fulton County Superior Court for failing to follow

mandatory e-filing requirements.

March 17, 2016
of the main appeal, this is true only where the cross-appeal can stand on its own

merit. This Court has no jurisdiction to entertain a cross-appeal which must derive

its life from the main appeal. See State, DOT v. Douglas Asphalt Co., 297 Ga. App.

511, 514 (677 SE2d 728) (2009). As the cross-appeal cannot stand on its own merit,

this Court has no jurisdiction over the appeal. See id. Thus, Xytex’s cross-appeal in

A16A1141 is also hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

03/17/2016
# C_2015245EN.01003801.xml

| 27.7.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 245/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.7.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 245/38

---

Action brought on 22 May 2015 — Arcelormittal Spain Holding v Commission

(Case T-257/15)

(2015/C 245/45)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Arcelormittal Spain Holding, S.L. (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: M. Muñoz Pérez, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Forms of order sought

Forms of order sought

| — | annul European Commission Decision C (2014) 7280 of 15 October 2014, on State aid SA 355550 (13/C) (ex 12/CP) implemented by Spain; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul European Commission Decision C (2014) 7280 of 15 October 2014, on State aid SA 355550 (13/C) (ex 12/CP) implemented by Spain;

| — | in the alternative annul Article 4(2) of that decision for the reasons stated, and |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative annul Article 4(2) of that decision for the reasons stated, and

| — | order the defendant institution to bear the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant institution to bear the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The contested decision in these proceedings is the same as that in Cases T-12/15, Banco de Santander and Santusa v Commission, and T-252/15 Ferrovial SA and others v Commission.

Banco de Santander and Santusa

Commission

Ferrovial SA and others

Commission

The pleas and main arguments relied on are similar to those already raised in those cases.

---
EIA

Facility CodeFacility Name

0AB Brown Unit 2

DateAverage Heat Input (MMBtu/hr) Day 1 1/17/2010 Day 2 1/18/2010 Day 3 1/19/2010 Day 4 1/20/2010 Day 5 1/21/2010 Day 6 1/22/2010 Day 7 1/23/2010 Day 8 1/24/2010 29.82 Day 9 1/25/2010 1952.8 Day 10 1/26/2010 2217 Day 11 1/27/2010 2182 Day 12 1/28/2010 2226.4 Day 13 1/29/2010 2478.7 Day 14 1/30/2010 1463.2 Day 151/31/2010 1649.8 Day 16 2/1/2010 2114.2 Day 17 2/2/2010 2199.7 Day 18 2/3/2010 2022.6 Day 19 2/4/2010 2159.4 Day 20 2/5/2010 1994.5 Day 21 2/6/2010 2300.8 Day 22 2/7/2010 2084.4 Day 23 2/8/2010 2150.1 Day 24 2/9/2010 2266 Day 252/10/2010 2227 Day 262/11/2010 2104.4 Day 272/12/2010 1970.5 Day 282/13/2010 1907.4 Day 292/14/2010 1611.9 Day 302/15/2010 2176.7Steam Output (1,000 lbs steam/hr)Unit Net Electric Generation (MWh) 1,110.3 161 1,393.3 199.5 1,409.1 194.4 1,336.5 182.8 1,332.2 183.3 26.8 19.6 2.6 32.4 2.4 48.1 1,291.8 179.1 1,477.1 204.3 1,233.0 204.7 1,477.3 202.2 1,701.2 234.6 989.0 150.7 1,012.1 140.9 1,397.0 194.2 1,402.0 201.1 1,291.7 184.7 1,398.0 197.6 1,318.4 186.9 1,575.0 201.7 1,401.0 145.1 1,472.2 158.8 1,499.0 172.5 1,436.3 159.1 1,365.4 177.8 1,322.8 140.6 1,271.0 145.7 1,094.2 134.3 1,478.0 148.6Control Device Operating Parameters, A s Appicable Unit Gross Electric Generation (MWe)Flue Gas Flow Rate (scfm) 165.8 626,000 203.8 575,471 205.2 571,581 194.1 644,646 194 579,376 3.7 211,681 0 79,964 0 149,694 183.5 517,582 214.6 534,154 214.4 555,466 212.1 309,985 243.4 645,520 142.9 586,142 149.6 631,798 202.5 579,279 208.2 551,455 193.3 594,153 206 632,993 194.4 596,986 224.8 565,392 204.4 540,319 213 530,253 216.3 586,627 211.6 538,637 185.3 510,410 194.5 519,919 187.3 461,906 163.9 532,325 214 540,450Pressure Drop across FGD (in H2O)FGD Scrubber Liquor Flow Rate (1000lb/hr) 5.9 1,110.3 5.9 1,351.0 5.9 1,379.0 5.9 1,316.7 5.9 1,314.7 7.6 30.1 8.2 0.0 8.2 7.1 6.1 1,316.2 5.9 1,433.5 5.9 1,465.0 5.9 1,466.1 5.9 1,652.3 6 981.6 6 1,029.9 6.1 1,394.3 5.9 1,352.0 5.9 1,243.4 5.9 1,355.6 5.9 1,272.4 5.9 1,548.0 5.9 1,364.2 5.9 1,437.1 5.9 1,449.0 5.9 1,384.0 5.9 1,304.8 5.9 1,287.5 5.9 1,240.0 6 1,075.2 5.9 1,432.2Flue Gas Sampling Point Temperature (Deg F) 127.44 128.95 129.5 129.1 128.5 95.6 76.3 75.3 124.4 128.7 129.1 129 129.6 122 126.8 129.2 129 128.4 128.9 128 129.6 129 129.7 128.6 128.5 128 128 127.4 126.6 128
May 25, 1956

No. 59953.—Suit 4828

and Suit 4829

#### (United States *v.*C. J. Tower & Sons) (C. J. Tower *&*Sons *v.*United States).

C. D. 1624. (Note: There were 15 protests decided in C. D. 1624, 2 of which were the subject of suit 4828, the remaining 13 protests being appealed in suit 4829.) On December 2, 1955 (C. A. D. 608), the appellate court reversed C. D. 1624, insofar as the 2 protests appealed in suit 4828 were concerned, and affirmed C. D. 1624, insofar as the 13 protests appealed in suit 4829 were concerned.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A17A0396. JAMES R. SIMS et al. v. ALTISOURCE RESIDENTIAL, LP.

This case began as a dispossessory proceeding in magistrate court. After the

magistrate court entered judgment in favor of plaintiff Altisource Residential, LP,

defendants James Sims and Melveta Hill-Sims appealed to the superior court. The

superior court also entered judgment in favor of the plaintiff. The defendants then

filed this direct appeal. We lack jurisdiction.

“[A]ppeals from decisions of the superior courts reviewing decisions of lower

courts by certiorari or de novo proceedings shall be by application for discretionary

appeal.” Bullock v. Sand, 260 Ga. App. 874, 875 (581 SE2d 333) (2003); see also

OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (1). The defendants’ failure to comply with the discretionary

appeal procedure deprives us of jurisdiction over this appeal, which is hereby

DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

May 10, 2017

05/10/2017
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03

- 22

- 00212

- CV

In re Karen McAndrews

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM BELL COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

The petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).

_______________________ ___________________

C hari L. Kelly , Justice

Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Kelly and S m ith

Filed: Apri l 20 , 2022
An official website of the United States government                            

Here’s how you know

**Official websites use .gov**A                                    **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.                                

**Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**A                                    **lock** (                                    LockLocked padlock icon) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.                                

GloVis
      -                                  Take Tour                                 
      -                                  FAQ                                 
      -                                  Release Notes                                 
      -                                  Source Code                                 
      -                                  Viewer                                 
      -                                  Item Basket  
      -                                  Feedback                                 
      -                                  Login                                 
      -                                  Help                                 

# Welcome to GloVis

            Since 2001, the USGS Global Visualization Viewer (GloVis) has been available to users for accessing remote sensing data. In 2017, it was redesigned to address changing internet technologies. With easy-to- use navigation tools, users can instantly view and download scenes.        

            This viewer allows you to:            - Use existing  EROS Registration System (ERS)  credentials to sign in
- Narrow down results by limiting your parameters on the Interface Control
- View multiple scenes at once and step through time using the controls in the lower right-hand corner
- View metadata and download the full-band source imagery
- Adjust settings to customize the user experience

Launch GloVis

                    Released files options to Landsat Collection 2 Level-1 products                                            
                            Release Notes:                            - Landsat Collection 2 Level-1 products on GloVis are available as a .tar.gz bundle download that includes all files associated with a scene. Or choose which band/files desired in a download. The different options are displayed in the Scene Download Options section. The list of possible files will vary depending on Sensor and Product. More information can be found in the document  GloVis Landsat Collection 2 Download Options Help

Full release details can be found on the release notes page.

          - DOI Privacy Policy
          - Legal
          - Accessibility
          - Site Map
          - Contact USGS

----

          - U.S. Department of the Interior
          - DOI Inspector General
          - White House
          - E-gov
          - No Fear Act
          - FOIA
No. 49555.

#### Protests 871673-G, etc., of Geo. E. Mallinson Importing Co., Inc., et al. (Philadelphia, etc.).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the-court dismissed the protests.
Exhibit 32.02

                            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 Montgomery Realty Group, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending June 30, 2003, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, O.
Lee Barnett, Chief Financial 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, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

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

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



/s/ O. Lee Barnett
--------------------------
O. Lee Barnett
Chief Financial Officer
August 14, 2003

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<PAGE>



                                                                    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 Blue Ridge Energy, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Norman
G. Haisler, Chief Financial 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 to the best of my knowledge:

   (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 as of and for the periods covered in the report.

/s/ Norman G. Haisler
Norman G. Haisler
Sr. Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
August 14, 2003
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 15-1969

Filed January 27, 2016

IN THE INTEREST OF B.F., 

C.P. and I.P.

Minor Children,

KIMBERLY S. AYOTTE, Guardian Ad Litem,

Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Romonda Belcher, 

District Associate Judge. 

The guardian ad litem appeals from a permanency order. AFFIRMED.

Kimberly S. Ayotte of Youth Law Center, attorney and guardian ad litem, 

appellant.

Jami J. Hagemeier of Williams & Hagemeier, P.L.C., Des Moines, for 

mother.

Marshall Orsini of Carr & Wright, P.L.C., Des Moines, for father.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Bruce Kempkes, Assistant 

Attorney General, for State.

Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Bower and McDonald, JJ.
2

MCDONALD, Judge.

The guardian ad litem appeals from the permanency order extending 

permanency for six months pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.104(2)(b) (2013). 

She contends the court erred in finding the children will be able to return to the 

care of either parent after the six-month extension and in not directing the county 

attorney to seek termination of parental rights. The guardian ad litem also 

contends additional time to pursue reunification is not in the best interest of the 

children. Our review of permanency orders is de novo. See In re A.T., 799 

N.W.2d 148, 150-51. We give weight to the factual findings of the juvenile court, 

but are not bound by them. Id. 

Under Iowa Code section 232.104(2)(b), the court may enter an order 

continuing placement of the children upon a finding the need for the children’s 

removal will no longer exist at the end of the additional six-month period. The 

court must “enumerate the specific factors, conditions, or expected behavioral 

changes which comprise the basis for the determination” the need for removal 

will no longer exist at the end the extension. Id. The court made the required 

findings and set forth in detail the specific factors, conditions, and behavioral 

changes necessary for each parent to resume custody at the end of the sixmonth period. Although cases where the statutory time for reunification has 

passed are viewed with a sense of urgency, see In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 495 

(Iowa 2000), the guardian ad litem’s assertion “the maximum time a parent can 

work towards reunification is 18 months” is incorrect. The court did not err in 
3

extending permanency in this case, even though the children had been out of the 

mother’s care for more than two years.

For the reasons set forth above, we affirm the challenged permanency 

order.

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

   Schedule of Year-To-Date Principal and Interest Distributions
                           to
                  Certificateholders
                                                                              Ending
Class                   Interest             Principal      Losses           Balance
<S>                     <C>                  <C>            <C>              <C>
A1                     1,271,905.61         649,765.46         0.00         97,977,234.54
A10                       17,187.50               0.00         0.00          1,250,000.00
A11                       17,187.50               0.00         0.00          1,250,000.00
A12                      192,276.39        (192,276.39)        0.00         15,030,276.39
A13                        6,458.33       1,000,000.00         0.00                  0.00
A2                       895,813.37       2,781,202.05         0.00         67,218,797.95
A3                       205,762.50               0.00         0.00         15,930,000.00
A4                        31,250.00               0.00         0.00          2,500,000.00
A5                        31,250.00               0.00         0.00          2,500,000.00
A6                        31,250.00               0.00         0.00          2,500,000.00
A7                        31,250.00               0.00         0.00          2,500,000.00
A8                        17,187.50               0.00         0.00          1,250,000.00
A9                        17,187.50               0.00         0.00          1,250,000.00
APO                            0.00             585.17         0.00            359,590.96
AR                             0.65             100.00         0.00                  0.00
B1                        53,832.76           5,257.06         0.00          4,163,742.94
B2                        26,186.82           2,557.28         0.00          2,025,442.72
B3                        15,998.75           1,562.37         0.00          1,237,437.64
B4                        10,188.07             994.92         0.00            788,005.08
B5                         7,269.81             709.94         0.00            562,290.06
B6                        10,189.94             851.79       143.30            788,149.73

</TABLE>