alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

BARBARA A. DWYER, : 

 Plaintiff : 

 : 

v. : 

: CIVIL ACTION 

: 

INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGIES, INC. : NO. 02-CV-4353 

 Defendant : 

 : 

 : 

PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, Barbara A. Dwyer, by and through her counsel, MacElree Harvey, LTD. 

hereby respectfully oppose the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Improper Venue Pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1406 and 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-4(f) filed on or about September 30, 2002 on the 

following grounds. 

1. Venue is proper in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in this action as 

more fully set forth in the attached Memorandum of Law Contra Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss 

and Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint attached hereto as Exhibit “A”. 

2. Venue is proper in this district because the wrongful discrimination 

occurred here and the plaintiff would have worked in this district absent the wrongful 

discrimination, as required by 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3). 

3. Further, defendant regularly conducts business in this district. 

4. Plaintiff resides in this district. 

Case 2:02-cv-04353-CRW Document 6 Filed 10/17/2002 Page 1 of 2
2

5. The only other jurisdiction that venue may be proper would be the Fourth 

Circuit. Accordingly, if this Honorable Court finds that venue is not proper in this district, the 

matter should be transferred to the Fourth Circuit rather than dismissed. 

WHEREFORE, plaintiff requests this Honorable Court enter an order denying 

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss or in the alternative transferring the action to the Fourth Circuit. 

Respectfully submitted, 

MacELREE HARVEY, LTD. 

By: 

 William T. Wilson, Esquire 

 Laurie Wyche-Abele, Esquire 

 Attorneys for Plaintiff 

MacELREE HARVEY, LTD. 

17 West Miner Street 

P.O. Box 660 

West Chester, PA 19381-0660 

(610) 436-0100 

Case 2:02-cv-04353-CRW Document 6 Filed 10/17/2002 Page 2 of 2
No. 50348.

#### Protests 968597-G, etc., of Oscar Feldman, Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

It was stipulated that the goatskins are similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Winograd Bros.*(32 C. C. P. A. 153, C. A. D. 302), which record was admitted in evidence herein. In accordance therewith the claim for free entry under paragraph 1681 was sustained.
Document

First Amendment To The 
Cincinnati Financial Corporation
Non-Employee Directors’ Stock Plan of 2018


Pursuant to the authority granted under Section 8.a. of the Cincinnati Financial Corporation Non-Employee Directors’ Stock Plan of 2018 (the “Plan”), Cincinnati Financial Corporation, acting through the compensation committee of the board of directors of Cincinnati Financial Corporation, hereby amends the Plan, effective as of January 1, 2021.
1.    Section 6.a. shall be restated as follows:
Commencing with the year 2019 and each year thereafter, and further subject to deferral under 6.e. below, the Committee may award to each Participant shares of common stock equal to the Maximum Annual Award.
2.    Section 6 shall further be amended to add the following, 6.e., to the end thereto:
Share awards may be deferred under the Cincinnati Financial Corporation Nonemployee Director Deferred Compensation Plan.  


Executed on behalf of the Committee on the 28th day January, 2021.




                            By:    /S/ David P. Osborn
                                David P. Osborn
                                Director
                                Cincinnati Financial Corporation
                                Compensation Committee Chairman
(see attached scope of accreditation for field(s) of inspection, including type, range, methods or procedures)Print Date: 04/12/2011Page 1 of 2This is to signify thatCERTIFICATION SERVICES INTERNATIONAL, LLC4145 NORTH CLAREY STREETEUGENE, OREGON 97402Product Certification Agency PCA-114Third-party Certification Bodyhas met the requirements of the IAS Accreditation Criteria for Product Certification Agencies (AC370) and has demonstratedcompliance with ISO/IEC Guide 65 (1996),General requirements for bodies operating product certification systems.CertificationServices International, LLC has been accredited, commencing March 1, 2011, to provide third-party product certification serviceslisted in the approved scope of accreditation.Patrick V. McCullen C. P. Ramani, P.E.Vice President PresidentCertification Services International, LLC PCA-114Third-party Certification BodyMarch 1, 2011Commencement Date C. P. Ramani, P.E.PresidentPrint Date: 04/12/2011Page 2 of 2Certification Services International, LLC Ben Vaughn4145 North Clarey St.PresidentEugene, OR 97402(541) 995-0020CATEGORIES of CERTIFICATIONFormaldenhyde Emissions from Wood ProductsCertification under California Air ResourcesBoard (ARB) ANSI and ANSI/HPVA Standards
# C_2017424EN.01003301.xml

| 11.12.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 424/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.12.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 424/33

---

Judgment of the General Court of 26 October 2017 — Paraskevaidis v Cedefop.

(Case T-601/16) (1)

1

((Civil Service - Officials - Cedefop - Promotion - 2015 Promotion exercise - Decision not to promote the applicant to Grade AD 12 - Articles 44 and 45 of the Staff Regulations - Comparison of the merits - Duty to state reasons - Implied rejection of the complaint - Liability))

(2017/C 424/47)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Georges Paraskevaidis (Auderghem, Belgium) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop) (represented by: M. Fuchs, Agent, and A. Duron, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application brought under Article 270 TFEU for, first, the annulment of the decision of the director of Cedefop of 4 November 2015 not to promote the applicant to Grade AD 12 in the 2015 promotion exercise and, second, compensation for the harm the applicant allegedly suffered as a result of that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the director of the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop) of 4 November 2015 not to promote the applicant to Grade AD 12 in the 2015 promotion exercise; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the director of the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop) of 4 November 2015 not to promote the applicant to Grade AD 12 in the 2015 promotion exercise;

| 2. | Orders Cedefop to pay Mr Paraskevaidis EUR 2 000 as compensation for the damage he suffered |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Cedefop to pay Mr Paraskevaidis EUR 2 000 as compensation for the damage he suffered

| 3. | Dismisses the action for the remainder. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Dismisses the action for the remainder.

| 4. | Orders Cedefop to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders Cedefop to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 296 of 16 August 2016 (case initially registered with the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under number F-31/16 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1 September 2016).

1

---
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         November 9, 2023.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on November 3, 2023, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 95 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2024-39, CP2024-39.                

Sean Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2023-24730 Filed 11-8-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
# C_2017086EN.01001001.xml

| 20.3.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.3.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/10

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Reggio Calabria (Italy) lodged on 16 December 2016 — Fortunata Silvia Fontana v Agenzia delle Entrate -Direzione provinciale di Reggio Calabria

(Case C-648/16)

(2017/C 086/12)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Reggio Calabria

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Fortunata Silvia Fontana

Applicant:

Defendant: Agenzia delle Entrate -Direzione provinciale di Reggio Calabria

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Do Articles 113 and 114 TFEU and Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax preclude the Italian domestic legislation in Articles 62 sexies (3) and 62 bis of Legislative Decree 331/1993 [converted into law by] Law No 427 of 29 October 1993, which allows the application of VAT to the overall turnover established by extrapolation, in the light of the principle of deduction and the obligation to recover the tax and, more generally, the principle of the neutrality and the passing-on of the tax?

1

---

(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).

1

---
# C_2017424EN.01003001.xml

| 11.12.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 424/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.12.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 424/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 October 2017 — Greece v Commission

(Case T-26/16) (1)

1

((EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Debt reporting irregularities - Delays in the recovery procedure - Failure to offset funds - Determination of the amount of interest - Proportionality - Flat-rate financial correction - Articles 31 to 33 of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 - Individual situations))

(2017/C 424/42)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: G. Kanellopoulos, O. Tsirkinidou and A. Vasilopoulou, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou and A. Sauka, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment in part of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/2098 of 13 November 2015 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2015 L 303, p. 35) to the extent that it concerns the Hellenic Republic.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

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

2.

Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 111, 29.3.2016.

1

---
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1223 Reported in Senate (RS)]

<DOC>

                                                       Calendar No. 272
115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1223

                          [Report No. 115-190]

             To repeal the Klamath Tribe Judgment Fund Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 24, 2017

Mr. Merkley (for himself and Mr. Wyden) introduced the following bill; 
  which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs

                            December 5, 2017

               Reported by Mr. Hoeven, with an amendment
                  [Insert the part printed in italic]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
             To repeal the Klamath Tribe Judgment Fund Act.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Klamath Tribe Judgment Fund Repeal 
Act''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL.

    Public Law 89-224 (commonly know as the ``Klamath Tribe Judgment 
Fund Act'') (79 Stat. 897) is repealed.

SEC. 3. DISBURSEMENT OF REMAINING FUNDS.

    Notwithstanding any provision of Public Law 89-224 (79 Stat. 897) 
(as in effect on the day before the date of enactment of this Act) 
relating to the distribution or use of funds, as soon as practicable 
after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior 
shall disburse to the Klamath Tribe the balance of any funds that, on 
or before the date of enactment of this Act, were appropriated or 
deposited into the trust accounts for remaining legal fees and 
administration and per capita trust accounts, as identified by the 
Secretary of the Interior, under that Act (as in effect on the day 
before the date of enactment of this Act).
                                                       Calendar No. 272

115th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                S. 1223

                          [Report No. 115-190]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

             To repeal the Klamath Tribe Judgment Fund Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                            December 5, 2017

                       Reported with an amendment
```
# C_2018381EN.01002101.xml

| 22.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 381/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 381/21

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 September 2018 — De Geoffroy and Others v Parliament.

(Case T-788/16) (1)

((Civil service - Officials - Leave - Adoption of the Parliament’s new Guidelines on leave management - Individual decisions taken under the new guidelines in the interpretation services - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment - Interests of the service - Plea of illegality))

(2018/C 381/23)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Dominique De Geoffroy (Brussels, Belgium) and the 14 other applicants whose names are annexed to the judgment (represented initially by N. de Montigny and J.-N. Louis, and subsequently by N. de Montigny, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: E. Taneva and L. Deneys, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 270 TFEU seeking the annulment, first, of Parliament’s guidelines of 21 March 2016 on the implementation, for interpretation services, of Article 4(5) of the internal rules on leave management; secondly, of Parliament’s decision of 12 April 2016 accepting Ms Françoise Joostens’ application for leave, but including the requested days of leave within a quota of three and a half days; thirdly, of Parliament’s decision of 2 June 2016 refusing to grant leave applied for by Mrs Joostens and, fourthly, of the Parliament’s decision of 13 June 2016 refusing to grant leave applied for by Mr Stéphane Grosjean.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the European Parliament of 13 June 2016 refusing to grant leave applied for by Mr Stéphane Grosjean. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the European Parliament of 13 June 2016 refusing to grant leave applied for by Mr Stéphane Grosjean.

| 2. | Dismisses the remainder of the action. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the remainder of the action.

| 3. | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 14, 16.1.2017.

---
# C_2019187EN.01006001.xml

| 3.6.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 187/60 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.6.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 187/60

---

Judgment of the General Court of 10 April 2019 — Jindal Saw and Jindal Saw Italia v Commission

(Case T-300/16) (1)

(Subsidies - Imports of tubes and pipes of ductile cast iron originating in India - Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/387 - Imposition of a definitive countervailing duty - Indian scheme establishing an export tax on iron ore and a dual railway freight charge placing the transport of iron ore for export at a disadvantage - Article 3(1)(a)(iv) of Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 (replaced by Regulation (EU) 2016/1037) - Financial contribution - Provision of goods - Action consisting of ‘entrusting’ a private body to carry out a function constituting a financial contribution - Article 4(2)(a) of Regulation No 597/2009 - Specificity of a subsidy - Article 6(d) of Regulation No 597/2009 - Calculation of benefit - Injury to the Union industry - Calculation of price undercutting and the injury margin - Causal link - Access to confidential data of the subsidy investigation - Rights of the defence)

(2019/C 187/64)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Jindal Saw Ltd (New Delhi, India), Jindal Saw Italia SpA (Trieste, Italy) (represented by: R. Antonini and E. Monard, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland and G. Luengo, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Saint-Gobain Pam (Pont-à-Mousson, France) (represented by: O. Prost, A. Coelho Dias and C. Bouvarel, lawyers)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/387 of 17 March 2016 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of tubes and pipes of ductile cast iron (also known as spheroidal graphite cast iron), originating in India (OJ 2016 L 73, p. 1), in so far as that regulation concerns the applicants.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/387 of 17 March 2016 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of tubes and pipes of ductile cast iron (also known as spheroidal graphite cast iron), originating in India, in so far as it concerns Jindal Saw Ltd; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/387 of 17 March 2016 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of tubes and pipes of ductile cast iron (also known as spheroidal graphite cast iron), originating in India, in so far as it concerns Jindal Saw Ltd;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Jindal Saw and Jindal Saw Italia SpA; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Jindal Saw and Jindal Saw Italia SpA;

| 3. | Orders Saint-Gobain Pam to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Saint-Gobain Pam to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 314, 29.8.2016.

---
**Exhibit 31.1**
CERTIFICATION
I, John S. Davis, 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/ John S. Davis   John S. Davis   President and