alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2018072EN.01000601.xml

| 26.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 December 2017 — Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco, Itelazpi SA (C-66/16 P), Comunidad Autónoma de Cataluña, Centre de Telecomunicacions i Tecnologies de la Informació de la Generalitat de Catalunya (CTTI) (C-67/16 P), Navarra de Servicios y Tecnologías SA (C-68/16 P), Cellnex Telecom SA, formerly Abertis Telecom SA, Retevisión I SA (C-69/16 P) v European Commission, SES Astra SA

(Joined Cases C-66/16 P to C-69/16 P) (1)

1

((Appeal - State aid - Digital television - Aid for the deployment of digital terrestrial television in remote and less urbanised areas - Subsidies granted to operators of digital terrestrial television platforms - Decision declaring the aid incompatible in part with the internal market - Concept of ‘State aid’ - Advantage - Service of general economic interest - Definition - Discretion of the Member States))

(2018/C 072/06)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Appellants: Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco, Itelazpi SA (C-66/16 P), Comunidad Autónoma de Cataluña, Centre de Telecomunicacions i Tecnologies de la Informació de la Generalitat de Catalunya (CTTI) (C-67/16 P), Navarra de Servicios y Tecnologías SA (C-68/16 P), Cellnex Telecom SA, formerly Abertis Telecom SA, Retevisión I SA (C-69/16 P) (represented by: J. Buendía Sierra, A. Lamadrid de Pablo and M. Bolsa Ferruz, abogados)

Appellants:

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: P. Němečková, É. Gippini Fournier and B. Stromsky, acting as Agents), SES Astra SA (represented by: F. González Díaz and V. Romero Algarra, abogados, and by F. Salerno, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismiss the appeals; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismiss the appeals;

| 2. | Orders the Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco, Itelazpi SA, the Comunidad Autónoma de Cataluña, the Centre de Telecomunicacions i Tecnologies de la Informació de la Generalitat de Catalunya (CTTI), Navarra de Servicios y Tecnologías SA, Cellnex Telecom SA and Retevisión I SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco, Itelazpi SA, the Comunidad Autónoma de Cataluña, the Centre de Telecomunicacions i Tecnologies de la Informació de la Generalitat de Catalunya (CTTI), Navarra de Servicios y Tecnologías SA, Cellnex Telecom SA and Retevisión I SA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 118, 4.4.2016.

1

---
IC 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1052 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

AUGUST 4, 2017 

Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

AN ACT 

To strengthen the use of patient-experience data within the 

benefit-risk framework for approval of new drugs. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with BILLS

2 

S 1052 RFH 

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Better Empowerment 

3 Now to Enhance Framework and Improve Treatments Act 

4 of 2017’’ or the ‘‘BENEFIT Act of 2017’’. 

5 SEC. 2. STRENGTHENING THE USE PATIENT-EXPERIENCE 

6 DATA WITHIN BENEFIT-RISK FRAMEWORK. 

7 Section 569C of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cos8 metic Act (21 U.S.C. 360bbb–8c) is amended— 

9 (1) in subsection (a)(1)— 

10 (A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘; 

11 and’’ and inserting a semicolon; 

12 (B) in subparagraph (B), by striking the 

13 period and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

14 (C) by adding at the end the following: 

15 ‘‘(C) as part of the risk-benefit assessment 

16 framework in the new drug approval process de17 scribed in section 505(d), considering relevant 

18 patient-focused drug development data, such as 

19 data from patient preference studies (benefit20 risk), patient reported outcome data, or patient 

21 experience data, developed by the sponsor of an 

22 application or another party.’’; and 

23 (2) in subsection (b)(1). by inserting ‘‘, includ24 ing a description of how such data and information 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with BILLS

3 

S 1052 RFH 

1 were considered in the risk benefit assessment de2 scribed in section 505(d)’’ before the period. 

Passed the Senate August 3, 2017. 

Attest: JULIE E. ADAMS, 

Secretary. 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with BILLS
Case No. 8,982.

#### MAJOR v. HANSEN.

[2 Biss. 195.] 1

Circuit Court, N. D. Illinois.

Nov., 1869.

Notes— Alteration — Not Material — Bona Fide Holder.

1. A bona fide holder of a promissory note from which the place where it was payable has been erased by an unauthorized person and without his knowledge can recover against the maker.

2. The alteration is not material, and enlarges but does not limit the rights of the maker.

Assumpsit upon a promissory note for $1,500 in gold "payable at 'the Commercial Bank of Canada.” These words were erased, and the proof showed that this had been done after the note left the maker’s hands, and without his knowledge or consent, but there was nothing to connect the plaintiff with the alteration, and he was a bona fide holder for value.

Beckwith, Ayer & Kales, for plaintiff.

Scoville, Bailey & Brawley, for defendant.

DRUMMOND, District Judge.

There is no material alteration of this note. The effect of the words "payable at the Commercial Bank of Canada” was to give the defendant the right to discharge his obligation by tendering the money at the place designated, and the only effect of erasing them was to give him the additional right of tendering the money wherever he might find the plaintiff. The rights of defendant are thereby enlarged, and in no respect limited, and he cannot complain unless he can in some manner connect the plaintiff with the alteration, or can show that he tendered the money at the place stated and has been damnified. If these words had been added the case would have been different for that would have been a material alteration— a limitation of the rights of defendants.

In this case the maker has shown no injury to himself from the erasure of these words, and the note being negotiable the responsibility rests upon him to prove his equities. Judgment for plaintiff.

For general doctrine of alteration of instruments, consult 2 Bars. Cont. 710-724.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

GENERAL REFRACTORIES COMPANY : CIVIL ACTION 

:

v. :

:

FIRST STATE INSURANCE CO., et al. : No. 04-3509 

ORDER 

AND NOW, this 10th day of May, 2012, upon request of counsel, the Clerk of Court

is directed to terminate the appearances of Marjorie T. Weiss, Esquire and James F.

McNaboe, Esquire as counsel of record in this action.

BY THE COURT: 

 /s/ Edmund V. Ludwig 

Edmund V. Ludwig, J. 

Case 2:04-cv-03509-EL Document 464 Filed 05/10/12 Page 1 of 1
No. 51606.

#### Protests 127032-K, etc., of Keystone Trading Co. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the • court dismissed the protests.
**EXHIBIT 23.1****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS**We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (Nos.333-127254, 333-117256, 333-115571, 333-134911) and Form S-8 (No. 333-106311) of our report datedMarch 13, 2007 (except for Note L, which is dated February 22, 2008), relating to the consolidatedfinancial statements and management’s assessment that GMX Resources Inc. and Subsidiariesmaintained effective internal control over financial reporting of GMX Resources Inc. andSubsidiaries, included in this amended Annual Report (Form 10-K/A Amendment No. 2) for the yearended December 31, 2006 and to the reference to us under the heading “Experts” in any relatedProspectus.                                                       /s/ Smith, Carney & Co., p.c.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

RICHARD NIXON, et al. : CIVIL ACTION

:

v. :

:

AMERICAN GENERAL LIFE INS. : NO. 02-4201

O R D E R

AND NOW, this day of August, 2002, it is hereby

ORDERED that a settlement conference is scheduled before the

undersigned on Friday, August 9, 2002 at 10:00 a.m. in Room 3029,

U.S. Courthouse, 601 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19106.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that trial counsel, clients and

any other person necessary to negotiate and agree to a settlement

shall appear in person at said conference. 

ATTEST: or BY THE COURT:

 

BY: Juanita M. Davis DIANE M. WELSH

 Deputy Clerk UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Copy faxed on 8/1/02 to:

Robert E.J. Curran, Esq.

Stephen C. Baker, Esq.

Case 2:02-cv-04201-AB Document 4 Filed 08/02/2002 Page 1 of 1
----

|   | I, Scott D. Dorfman, Chief Executive Officer of Innotrac Corporation (the “Company”), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 as adopted by § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:               |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                         |
| (1)    | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for three months ended March 31, 2011 (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.                                                                         |

|   | Dated:  May 16, 2011                                                                            |   |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |                                                                                                      |   |
|   | /s/ Scott D. Dorfman                                                                                      |   |
|   | Scott D. DorfmanPresident, Chief Executive Officer and Chairmanof the Board (Principal Executive Officer) |
# C_2018083EN.01000302.xml

| 5.3.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 83/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.3.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 83/3

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 January 2018 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-363/16) (1)

1

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - State aid - Aid declared unlawful and incompatible with the internal market - Obligation to recover - Second subparagraph of Article 108(2) TFEU - Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 - Article 14(3) - Undertaking benefiting from the aid declared insolvent - Insolvency proceedings - Registration of the liabilities in the schedule of liabilities - Cessation of activities - Suspension of insolvency proceedings for the purposes of examining the prospect of relaunching the business - Obligation to provide information - Failure to perform))

(2018/C 083/04)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouchagiar and B. Stromsky, acting as Agents,

Applicant:

Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: K. Boskovits and V. Karra, acting as Agents.)

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to take, within the prescribed periods, all the measures necessary for the implementation of Commission Decision 2012/541/EU of 22 February 2012 on the State aid SA.26534 (C 27/10 ex NN 6/09) implemented by Greece in favour of United Textiles SA, and by failing to inform the Commission adequately of the measures taken pursuant to that decision, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2 to 4 of that decision as and under the TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to take, within the prescribed periods, all the measures necessary for the implementation of Commission Decision 2012/541/EU of 22 February 2012 on the State aid SA.26534 (C 27/10 ex NN 6/09) implemented by Greece in favour of United Textiles SA, and by failing to inform the Commission adequately of the measures taken pursuant to that decision, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2 to 4 of that decision as and under the TFEU.

| 2. | Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 305, 22.8.2016.

1

---
**MORGENSTERN
      SVOBODA & BAER, CPA'S,
      P.C.**





CERTIFIED
      PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


40
      Exchange Place, Suite 1820


New
      York,
      NY 10005


TEL:
      (212) 925-9490


Fax:
      (212) 226-9134


E-MAIL:
      MORGENCPA@CS.COM








Board
      of
      Directors


New
      Medium Enterprises, Inc.


195
      The
      Vale


London
      W3
      7QS





We
      consent to the use of our report dated October 21, 2005, on page 17 of Form
      10-KSB/A of New Medium Enterprises, Inc. for the year ended June 30, 2005,
      and
      our report dated May 15, 2006 of Form 10-QSB, included herein, and to the
      reference to our firm under the heading "Experts" in the prospectus. Our report
      dated May 15, 2006, contains an explanatory paragraph that states that the
      company has suffered recurring losses from operations, negative cash flow and
      has a net capital deficiency, which raises substantial doubt about its ability
      to continue as a going concern. The consolidated financials statements do not
      include any adjustments that might result from the outcome of the
      uncertainty.








/s/
      MORGENSTERN, SVOBODA & BAER, CPA'S, P.C.


CERTIFIED
      PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS





New
      York,
      NY


June
      7,
      2006
# C_2019093EN.01000201.xml

| 11.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 93/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 January 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad — Bulgaria) — Criminal proceedings against Petar Dzivev and Others

(Case C-310/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Protection of the European Union’s financial interests - Article 325(1) TFEU - Convention on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests - Criminal proceedings concerning VAT offences - Principle of effectiveness - Taking of evidence - Interception of telecommunications - Authorisation granted by a court that lacks jurisdiction - Taking those interceptions into consideration as evidence - Provisions of national law - Prohibition))

(2019/C 93/02)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad

Parties in the main proceedings

Petar Dzivev, Galina Angelova, Georgi Dimov, Milko Velkov

Operative part of the judgment

Article 325(1) TFEU, and Article 1(1)(b) and Article 2(1) of the Convention drawn up on the basis of Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union, on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests, signed in Luxembourg on 26 July 1995, read in conjunction with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted to the effect that, in the light of the principle of effectiveness of the prosecution of value added tax (VAT) offences, they do not preclude a national court from applying a national provision excluding, from a prosecution, evidence such as the interception of telecommunications requiring prior judicial authorisation, where that authorisation was given by a court that lacked jurisdiction, in a situation in which that evidence alone is capable of proving that the offences in question were committed.

---

(1)  OJ C 310, 29.8.2016.

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JOSEPH and CAROLYN SEBESTYEN, :

: CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-CV-4262

Plaintiffs, :

:

v. :

:

BAYER CORPORATION;

BAYER AG;

GLAXOSMITHKLINE, PLC;

GLAXOSMITHKLINE;

SMITHKLINE BEECHAM

:

:

:

:

:

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

:

Defendants. :

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

To the Clerk of the Court:

Kindly enter the appearances of Hope S. Freiwald, Aline Fairweather, Erin

Brennan and Kirstin J. Miller as attorneys for defendant SmithKline Beecham Corporation d/b/a

GlaxoSmithKline.

Respectfully Submitted,

_____________________________ _____________________________

Hope S. Freiwald Aline Fairweather

_____________________________ _____________________________

Erin Brennan Kirstin J. Miller

DECHERT PRICE & RHOADS

4000 Bell Atlantic Tower

1717 Arch Street

Philadelphia, PA 19103-2793

(215) 994-4000

Case 2:02-cv-04262-CG Document 7 Filed 10/04/2002 Page 1 of 1
# C_2017129EN.01001402.xml

| 24.4.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 129/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.4.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 129/14

---

Order of the President of the Court of 15 December 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover — Germany) — Andrea Witzel, Jannis Witzel, Jazz Witzel v Germanwings GmbH

(Case C-520/16) (1)

1

(2017/C 129/22)

Language of the case: German

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 30, 30.1.2017.

1

---
Exhibit 32

                CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


         The  undersigned,  who are the chief  executive  officer  and the chief
financial  officer of GrandSouth  Bancorporation,  Inc.,  each hereby  certifies
that,  to the best of his  knowledge,  the  accompanying  Form 10-K for the year
ended December 31, 2008,  fully complies with the  requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that information  contained
in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the issuer.

March 30, 2009

                                       s/Mason Y. Garrett
                                       -----------------------------------
                                       Mason Y. Garrett
                                       Chief Executive Officer


                                       s/J. B. Garrett
                                       -----------------------------
                                       J. B. Garrett
                                       Chief Financial Officer
Case 2:04-cv-03301-PBT Document 19-3 Filed 08/10/06 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 13.1



Certification of Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

as adopted pursuant to Section 906

of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



In connection with this Annual Report for Fiscal 2014 Ended August 31, 2014 of Golden Goliath Resources Ltd., a company organized under the British Columbia Corporations Act(the Company) on Form 20-F as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, J. Paul Sorbara, President and Director of the Company, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. (S) 1350, as adopted pursuant to (S) 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.



/s/ J. Paul Sorbara

J. Paul Sorbara, President/Director





Date: December 30, 2014
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

MASS ENGINEERED DESIGN, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

PLANAR SYSTEMS, INC.,

Defendant-Appellant

______________________

2019-1365

______________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

District of Oregon in No. 3:16-cv-01510-SI, Judge Michael 

H. Simon.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

JOHN J. EDMONDS, Edmonds & Schlather, PLLC, Houston, TX, argued for plaintiff-appellee. Also represented by 

STEPHEN F. SCHLATHER. 

 DAVID W. LONG, Essential Patent LLC, Oak Hill, VA, 

argued for defendant-appellant. Also represented by 

ANDREW TIMOTHY OLIVER, Amin Turocy & Watson LLP, 

San Jose, CA; JENNY CHEN, Chen IP Law, Taipei, Taiwan.

 ______________________

Case: 19-1365 Document: 54 Page: 1 Filed: 03/22/2021
2 MASS ENGINEERED DESIGN, INC. v. PLANAR SYS., INC.

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

 PER CURIAM (LOURIE, DYK, and STOLL, Circuit 

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT 

March 22, 2021 

Date

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

Case: 19-1365 Document: 54 Page: 2 Filed: 03/22/2021
Case 2:04-cv-04741-PBT Document 72 Filed 07/31/06 Page 1 of 25
Case 2:04-cv-04741-PBT Document 72 Filed 07/31/06 Page 2 of 25
Case 2:04-cv-04741-PBT Document 72 Filed 07/31/06 Page 3 of 25
Case 2:04-cv-04741-PBT Document 72 Filed 07/31/06 Page 4 of 25
Case 2:04-cv-04741-PBT Document 72 Filed 07/31/06 Page 5 of 25
Case 2:04-cv-04741-PBT Document 72 Filed 07/31/06 Page 6 of 25
Case 2:04-cv-04741-PBT Document 72 Filed 07/31/06 Page 7 of 25
Case 2:04-cv-04741-PBT Document 72 Filed 07/31/06 Page 8 of 25
Case 2:04-cv-04741-PBT Document 72 Filed 07/31/06 Page 9 of 25
Case 2:04-cv-04741-PBT Document 72 Filed 07/31/06 Page 10 of 25
Case 2:04-cv-04741-PBT Document 72 Filed 07/31/06 Page 11 of 25
Case 2:04-cv-04741-PBT Document 72 Filed 07/31/06 Page 12 of 25
Case 2:04-cv-04741-PBT Document 72 Filed 07/31/06 Page 13 of 25
Case 2:04-cv-04741-PBT Document 72 Filed 07/31/06 Page 14 of 25
Case 2:04-cv-04741-PBT Document 72 Filed 07/31/06 Page 15 of 25
Case 2:04-cv-04741-PBT Document 72 Filed 07/31/06 Page 16 of 25
Case 2:04-cv-04741-PBT Document 72 Filed 07/31/06 Page 17 of 25
Case 2:04-cv-04741-PBT Document 72 Filed 07/31/06 Page 18 of 25
Case 2:04-cv-04741-PBT Document 72 Filed 07/31/06 Page 19 of 25
Case 2:04-cv-04741-PBT Document 72 Filed 07/31/06 Page 20 of 25
Case 2:04-cv-04741-PBT Document 72 Filed 07/31/06 Page 21 of 25
Case 2:04-cv-04741-PBT Document 72 Filed 07/31/06 Page 22 of 25
Case 2:04-cv-04741-PBT Document 72 Filed 07/31/06 Page 23 of 25
Case 2:04-cv-04741-PBT Document 72 Filed 07/31/06 Page 24 of 25
Case 2:04-cv-04741-PBT Document 72 Filed 07/31/06 Page 25 of 25