alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
BEFOR E TH E DEPARTMEN TO F TRANSPORTATIO N WASHINGTON , D.C .
Agreement s Adopte d b yth e Traffi c Conference s o f th e Internationa l Ai r Transpor t Associatio n 

### OST-2010 - O^SZ .

APPLICATIO N FO R APPROVA L O F AGREEMENT S

BYTH E INTERNATIONA L AI R TRANSPOR TASSOCIATIO N lAT A AGREEMEN T APPROVE D &IM ; O 

### DOCKETOST-2^/^ . QO^ ^ j , ,, . .v^ EAf ^ ^ , P^/ ^ Thi s approval an dgran t

o f antitrus t immunity i s subject , where nppiicr! : t o condition s previousl y imposed . Thi s actio ni s effectiv e after 7 day s unles s apetitio nK <?•-• ' "i ' -t

1 4 CF R385.3 0 o r

nrevie w i s Lindertnkc: ! o: i -i^ c 1J I• I nvie w o f th e aGic'jr,v.:iii s ;io;icontrovc'si;! ! nr.n, , th e abov e Brtracdurc , th e 2 1 -^ y ngpiodij u i 4 Ci - k j, ,

0 9 Februar

y201 0 Communication s wit h respec t t o thi s documen t shoul d b e sen t t o Dougla s E . Lavi n Regiona l Vic e Presiden t - Nort h Americ a Internationa l Ai rTranspor t Associatio n lAT AWashington , 60 1 Pennsylvani a Avenue , N.W . Suit e 30 0 - Nort h Buildin g Washingto n D C 2000 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

AUDREY LYNN HUBLER : CIVIL ACTION

 :

v. :

 :

WIDENER UNIVERSITY : NO. 05-01785-JF

BRYAN UBER : CIVIL ACTION

 :

v. :

 :

WIDENER UNIVERSITY : NO. 05-01920-JF

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Fullam, Sr. J. June 13, 2005

The above-captioned cases arise from a common factual

nucleus, and will now be consolidated for all purposes. 

The defendant, Widener University, has filed a motion

to dismiss in each case. Contrary to defendant’s arguments, I

conclude that both complaints pass muster under the Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12(b)(6) standard. Ms. Hubler’s complaint adequately alleges

that, over an extended period, she was the victim of sexual

harassment at the hands of a fellow student, who was also the son

of a faculty member; and that the defendant’s reaction amounted

to studied neglect of the problem. Since the harassment extended

over a considerable period, and her complaints to the defendant

were not finally resolved until the summer of 2003, her complaint

filed in April 2005 was timely. There were no mandatory

Case 2:05-cv-01920-JF Document 5 Filed 06/13/05 Page 1 of 3
2

grievance procedures for her to follow, and, in any event, she

adequately complained to the University. 

Plaintiff Bryan Uber adequately alleges that he was

disciplined in retaliation for having complained about the

harassment of Ms. Hubler, and for assisting her in complaining to

the police about the conduct of the fellow student. His

complaint also sufficiently alleges a claim for violation of due

process. According to his complaint, he was summarily ordered

out of his dormitory and off the campus without a hearing of any

kind; he was later given 24 hours’ notice of the hearing, but was

simultaneously notified that, although he could present the

testimony of witnesses who were willing to testify, he could not

compel the attendance of any witness; and that, while he was

entitled to be represented by an advisor at the hearing, he would

be required to furnish the name of the advisor at least 24 hours

before the hearing (i.e., shortly before receipt of the notice).

The defendants’ motions to dismiss these complaints

will therefore be denied.

An Order follows.

Case 2:05-cv-01920-JF Document 5 Filed 06/13/05 Page 2 of 3
3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

AUDREY LYNN HUBLER : CIVIL ACTION

 :

v. :

 :

WIDENER UNIVERSITY : NO. 05-01785-JF

BRYAN UBER : CIVIL ACTION

 :

v. :

 :

WIDENER UNIVERSITY : NO. 05-01920-JF

ORDER

AND NOW, this 13th day of June 2005, IT IS ORDERED:

1. The above-captioned actions are CONSOLIDATED for

all purposes.

2. Defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaints in

each action are DENIED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ John P. Fullam 

John P. Fullam, Sr. J.

Case 2:05-cv-01920-JF Document 5 Filed 06/13/05 Page 3 of 3
Exhibit 15.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form F-3 No. 333-207092) of América Móvil, S.A.B. de C.V. of our reports
dated April 18, 2016, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of América Móvil, S.A.B. de C.V. and subsidiaries, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of América Móvil, S.A.B. de C.V.,
included in this Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2015.



Mancera, S.C. A member practice
of Ernst & Young Global Limited/s/ Carlos Carrillo ContrerasC.P.C. Carlos Carrillo Contreras


Mexico City, Mexico

April 26, 2016
Case 2:02-cv-04382-RB Document 43 Filed 11/01/2004 Page 1 of 11
Case 2:02-cv-04382-RB Document 43 Filed 11/01/2004 Page 2 of 11
Case 2:02-cv-04382-RB Document 43 Filed 11/01/2004 Page 3 of 11
Case 2:02-cv-04382-RB Document 43 Filed 11/01/2004 Page 4 of 11
Case 2:02-cv-04382-RB Document 43 Filed 11/01/2004 Page 5 of 11
Case 2:02-cv-04382-RB Document 43 Filed 11/01/2004 Page 6 of 11
Case 2:02-cv-04382-RB Document 43 Filed 11/01/2004 Page 7 of 11
Case 2:02-cv-04382-RB Document 43 Filed 11/01/2004 Page 8 of 11
Case 2:02-cv-04382-RB Document 43 Filed 11/01/2004 Page 9 of 11
Case 2:02-cv-04382-RB Document 43 Filed 11/01/2004 Page 10 of 11
Case 2:02-cv-04382-RB Document 43 Filed 11/01/2004 Page 11 of 11
# C_2020390EN.01005101.xml

| 16.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 390/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 390/51

---

Order of the General Court of 23 September 2020 — Director-General of OLAF v Commission

(Case T-251/16) (1)

(2020/C 390/68)

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 260, 18.7.2016.

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Date of Notice:

JACQUELINE DRINKS : July 16, 2003

 vs. :

LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION : CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-4352

MANAGEMENT & DATA SYSTEMS

TAKE NOTICE that the above-captioned matter is

scheduled for JURY TRIAL in the United States District Court,

United States Courthouse, 601 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA,

before the Honorable John P. Fullam, on October 20, 2003, at

10:00 A.M., in Courtroom No. 15-A.

If trial counsel is on trial or otherwise engaged at

the time of the scheduled trial, another attorney in such trial

counsel's office should appear.

THE MATTER WILL BE CONTINUED TO ANOTHER DATE ONLY IN

EXCEPTIONAL CASES.

Very truly yours,

Rosalind Burton-Hoop

Deputy Clerk to Judge Fullam

COPIES BY MAIL ON 7/16/03 TO: Arthur B. Jarrett, Esquire

 Jonathan J. James, Esquire

 Sidney L. Gold, Esquire

Case 2:02-cv-04352-JF Document 5 Filed 07/16/2003 Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>

                                 Certification

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

                      STATEMENT OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                         OF CTI MOLECULAR IMAGING, INC.
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                    SS. 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with the Annual Report of CTI Molecular Imaging, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended September 30, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, David N. Gill, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to 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.



                                     /s/ David N. Gill
                                     ------------------------------------------
                                     David N. Gill
                                     Senior Vice President and
                                     Chief Financial Officer
                                     December 19, 2002
Case 2:02-cv-04393-JS Document 48-2 Filed 06/20/2005 Page 1 of 1
# C_2017202EN.01000801.xml

| 26.6.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.6.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/8

---

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 4 April 2017 — Sharif University of Technology v Council of the European Union

(Case C-385/16 P) (1)

1

((Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Restrictive measures against the Islamic Republic of Iran - List of persons and entities subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources - Criterion relating to the material, logistical or financial support to the Government of Iran - Cooperation in research and technological development in military or military-related fields))

(2017/C 202/11)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Sharif University of Technology (represented by: M. Happold, Barrister)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: V. Piessevaux and M. Bishop, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings:

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Sharif University of Technology shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Sharif University of Technology shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ C 335, 12.9.2016.

1

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

H.S. SADOW, JR. CIVIL ACTION

 NO. 02-4476

 VS. 

McNEIL-PPC, INC.

 

MARNA BERKMAN

 VS. NO. 02-4362

McNEIL-PPC, INC.

 

RICHARD KIRSCH, ET AL

 VS. NO. 02-4387

McNEIL-PPC, INC.

 

ANDREW SPARK

NO. 02-4386

 VS.

McNEIL-PPC, INC.

Case 2:02-cv-04362-MK Document 2 Filed 07/12/2002 Page 1 of 2
 ORDER

AND NOW, this 12th of JULY, 2002, it is hereby, 

 ORDERED that the above captioned cases are reassigned from

the calendar of the Honorable Berle M. Schiller to the Honorable Marvin Katz, as

related to Civil Action Nos. 02-4093, 02-4149, 02-4105, 02-4180 and 02-4197.

FOR THE COURT:

 

JAMES T. GILES

Chief Judge

ATTEST:

 

MICHAEL E. KUNZ

Clerk of Court

Case 2:02-cv-04362-MK Document 2 Filed 07/12/2002 Page 2 of 2
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1262 

To amend title 11, United States Code, with respect to certain exceptions 

to discharge in bankruptcy. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 25, 2017 

Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. WHITEHOUSE, Mr. FRANKEN, Mr. 

BLUMENTHAL, Ms. HIRONO, Ms. WARREN, Mr. REED, Mr. WYDEN, Ms. 

BALDWIN, Ms. HASSAN, Mr. KAINE, and Mr. MURPHY) introduced the 

following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the 

Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 11, United States Code, with respect to 

certain exceptions to discharge in bankruptcy. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Fairness for Strug5 gling Students Act of 2017’’. 

6 SEC. 2. EXCEPTIONS TO DISCHARGE. 

7 Section 523(a)(8) of title 11, United States Code, is 

8 amended by striking ‘‘dependents, for’’ and all that follows 

9 through the end of subparagraph (B) and inserting ‘‘deVerDate Sep 11 2014 02:41 Jun 02, 2017 Jkt 069200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S1262.IS S1262

lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1262 IS

1 pendents, for an educational benefit overpayment or loan 

2 made, insured, or guaranteed by a governmental unit or 

3 made under any program funded in whole or in part by 

4 a governmental unit or an obligation to repay funds re5 ceived from a governmental unit as an educational benefit, 

6 scholarship, or stipend;’’. 

Æ 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
# C_2016251EN.01000701.xml

| 11.7.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 251/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.7.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 251/7

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia provincial de Tarragona, Sección cuarta (Spain) lodged on 14 April 2016 — Ministerio Fiscal

(Case C-207/16)

(2016/C 251/09)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Referring court

Audiencia provincial de Tarragona, Sección cuarta

Party to the main proceedings

Party to the main proceedings

Ministerio Fiscal

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Can the sufficient seriousness of offences, as a criterion which justifies interference with the fundamental rights recognised by Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter, (1) be determined taking into account only the sentence which may be imposed in respect of the offence investigated, or is it also necessary to identify in the criminal conduct particular levels of harm to individual and/or collective legally-protected interests? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Can the sufficient seriousness of offences, as a criterion which justifies interference with the fundamental rights recognised by Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter, (1) be determined taking into account only the sentence which may be imposed in respect of the offence investigated, or is it also necessary to identify in the criminal conduct particular levels of harm to individual and/or collective legally-protected interests?

1

| 2. | If it were in accordance with the constitutional principles of the European Union, used by the Court of Justice in its judgment of 8 April 2014 [Joined Cases C-293/12 (Digital Rights Ireland) and C-594/12 (Seitlinger and Others)] as standards for the strict review of the Directive, (2) to determine the seriousness of the offence solely on the basis of the sentence which may be imposed, what should the minimum threshold be? Would it be compatible with a general provision setting a minimum of three years’ imprisonment? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If it were in accordance with the constitutional principles of the European Union, used by the Court of Justice in its judgment of 8 April 2014 [Joined Cases C-293/12 (Digital Rights Ireland) and C-594/12 (Seitlinger and Others)] as standards for the strict review of the Directive, (2) to determine the seriousness of the offence solely on the basis of the sentence which may be imposed, what should the minimum threshold be? Would it be compatible with a general provision setting a minimum of three years’ imprisonment?

Digital Rights Ireland

Seitlinger and Others

2

---

(1)  Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (OJ C 326, p. 391).

1

(2)  Directive 2006/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks and amending Directive 2002/58/EC (OJ 2006 L 105, p. 54).

2

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                             817
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   16,448
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,105
<INVENTORY>                                     25,880
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                43,915
<PP&E>                                          70,379
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,976
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 227,090
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           22,635
<BONDS>                                        128,050
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      37,356
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   227,090
<SALES>                                         48,994
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                48,994
<CGS>                                           35,993
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   46,046
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,004
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   170
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,497
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (6,553)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (2,175)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (4,378)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (4,378)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Case 2:05-cv-00232-TON Document 132 Filed 01/21/10 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:05-cv-00232-TON Document 132 Filed 01/21/10 Page 2 of 2
# sf133_schp--OUTPUT

&"Arial,Bold"&9Bulletin No. 2021-17	&"Arial,Bold"&9V SF 133/Sch P - &P	&"Arial,Bold"&10April 21, 2021 IRC Handout
Case No. 13,699.

#### SWIFT et al. v. WADY.

[Nowhere reported; opinion not now accessible.]
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

284 CA 11-02143 PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., PERADOTTO, CARNI, LINDLEY, AND WHALEN, JJ.

DEBORAH VOSS, PROP-CO, LLC, CLASSI PEOPLE, INC., DOING BUSINESS AS SERTINO’S CAFÉ, AND DREAM PEOPLE, INC., DOING BUSINESS AS SHIVER MODEL, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,

V ORDER

THE NETHERLANDS INSURANCE COMPANY, D.R. CASEY CONSTRUCTION CORP., DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS. (APPEAL NO. 1.)

DIRK J. OUDEMOOL, SYRACUSE, FOR PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS.
SMITH, SOVIK, KENDRICK & SUGNET, P.C., SYRACUSE (KAREN J. KROGMAN OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT D.R. CASEY CONSTRUCTION CORP.
MURA & STORM, PLLC, BUFFALO (SCOTT D. STORM OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT THE NETHERLANDS INSURANCE COMPANY.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Deborah H. Karalunas, J.), entered June 8, 2011. The order granted the motion of defendant The Netherlands Insurance Company and the cross motion of defendant D.R. Casey Construction Corp. for partial summary judgment.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs for reasons stated at Supreme Court.

Entered: March 15, 2013 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
---

CERTIFICATIONS

The undersigned, J. Stephen Barley, hereby certifies, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|(1) | the annual report on Form 20-F of Tuscany Minerals Ltd.
      for the year ended December 31, 2009 (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 Tuscany Minerals Ltd.                                                               

Dated: April 29, 2010

| | /s/ J.
      Stephen Barley     
| | --------------------------------
| | J. Stephen Barley               
| | Chief Financial Officer         
| | (Principal Financial Officer and
| | Principal Accounting Officer)   

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 required by Section 906, has been provided to Tuscany Minerals
Ltd. and will be retained by Tuscany Minerals Ltd. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
# C_2017038EN.01001001.xml

| 6.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/10

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Versailles (France) lodged on 17 November 2016 — Green Yellow Canet en Roussillon SNC v Enedis, SA

(Case C-583/16)

(2017/C 038/13)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Versailles

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Green Yellow Canet en Roussillon SNC

Applicant:

Defendant: Enedis, SA

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 107(1) TFEU be interpreted as meaning that the obligation to purchase the electricity generated by plants which use solar radiation energy at a price higher than the market price, that is financed by all final consumers of electricity, as it results from the Ministerial Orders of 10 July 2006 (JORF No 171 of 26 July 2006, p. 11133) and 12 January 2010 (JORF No 0011 of 14 January 2010, p. 727) fixing the conditions for purchasing that electricity, read in conjunction with Law No 2000-108 of 10 February 2000 on the modernisation and development of the public electricity service, Decree No 2000-1196 of 6 December 2000 and Decree No 2001-410 of 10 May 2001, constitutes State aid? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 107(1) TFEU be interpreted as meaning that the obligation to purchase the electricity generated by plants which use solar radiation energy at a price higher than the market price, that is financed by all final consumers of electricity, as it results from the Ministerial Orders of 10 July 2006 (JORF No 171 of 26 July 2006, p. 11133) and 12 January 2010 (JORF No 0011 of 14 January 2010, p. 727) fixing the conditions for purchasing that electricity, read in conjunction with Law No 2000-108 of 10 February 2000 on the modernisation and development of the public electricity service, Decree No 2000-1196 of 6 December 2000 and Decree No 2001-410 of 10 May 2001, constitutes State aid?

| 2. | If so, must Article 108(3) TFEU be interpreted as meaning that the failure to notify the European Commission of that mechanism beforehand affects the validity of the abovementioned Orders giving effect to the aid at issue? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If so, must Article 108(3) TFEU be interpreted as meaning that the failure to notify the European Commission of that mechanism beforehand affects the validity of the abovementioned Orders giving effect to the aid at issue?

---
# March 2015

# April 2015

# May 2015

# June 2015

# July 2015

# August 2015

# September 2015

# October 2015

# November 2015

# December 2015

# January 2016

# February 2016

# March 2016

# April 2016

# May 2016

# June 2016

# July 2016

# August 2016