alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2022037EN.01002501.xml

| 24.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 37/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 37/25

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 November 2021 — CX v Commission

(Case T-743/16 RENV II) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Disciplinary measure - Removal from post - OLAF investigation - Unauthorised and clandestine negotiation of a contract - Conflict of interests - Certification of a non-compliant invoice - Rights of the defence - Right to be heard - Repeated absence of the applicant and his lawyer from the disciplinary hearing - Legal certainty - Legitimate expectations - Proportionality - Reasonable time - Principle ne bis in idem - Manifest error of assessment - Obligation to state reasons)

(2022/C 37/33)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: CX (represented by: É. Boigelot, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Bohr and C. Ehrbar, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of Commission Decision of 16 October 2013 removing the applicant from his post without reduction of his entitlement to a retirement pension and, second, compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant on account of that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders CX to bear his own costs and to pay those of the European Commission relating to the present proceedings and to the proceedings in Cases F-5/14 R, F-5/14, T-493/15 P, T-743/16 RENV and C-131/19 P. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders CX to bear his own costs and to pay those of the European Commission relating to the present proceedings and to the proceedings in Cases F-5/14 R, F-5/14, T-493/15 P, T-743/16 RENV and C-131/19 P.

---

(1)  OJ C 85, 22.3.2014 (case initially registered before the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union under number F-5/14 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).

---
<PAGE>

Exhibit 32.2

                          WESTERN RESERVE BANCORP, INC.
                                   FORM 10-QSB
                        QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2004

                       CERTIFICATION OF FINANCIAL RESULTS

I, Cynthia A. Mahl, the Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of
Western Reserve Bancorp, Inc., hereby certify the following:

      -     This Form 10-QSB fully complies with the requirements of Sections
            13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and

      -     The information contained in the report fairly presents, in all
            material respects, the financial position and results of operations
            of Western Reserve Bancorp, Inc. as of and for the periods
            presented.

Date: November 12, 2004                    /s/ Cynthia A. Mahl
                                           Cynthia A. Mahl
                                           Senior Vice President/Chief
                                           Financial Officer

                                    Page 36
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. AP-76,932

EX PARTE JOSE CARLOS BELMONT, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 2008CR4397 IN THE 399 CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT

TH

FROM BEXAR COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of two counts of

capital murder and sentenced to two life sentences, running concurrently. He did not appeal his

conviction. 

Applicant contends that his convictions violate the Double Jeopardy Clause of the US

Constitution. Applicant was indicted for killing two individuals during the same criminal episode. 

Under Section 19.03 of the Texas Penal Code, killing more than one person during the same criminal
transaction is capital murder. This is one offense of capital murder under Tex. Penal Code Sec.

19.03 (a)(7)(A). Saenz v. State, 166 S.W.3d 270, 272 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Applicant is entitled

to relief.

Relief is granted. The judgment in count two of Cause No. 2008CR4397 in the 399 Judicial th

District Court of Bexar County is vacated and set aside. All challenges to the judgment in count one

are denied. Applicant’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and involuntary plea are denied.

Copies of this opinion shall be sent to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Correctional

Institutions Division and Parole Division.

Delivered: December 19, 2012

Do Not Publish
Exhibit 32.1





Statement of Chief Executive Officer Furnished


Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





The undersigned, Kim S. Price, is the President and Chief Executive Officer of Citizens South Banking Corporation (the “Company”).





This statement is being furnished in connection with the filing by the Company of the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2012 (the “Report”).





By execution of this statement, I certify that to the best of my knowledge:





A)
the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)) and





B)
the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of the dates and for the periods covered by the Report.







August 14, 2012


/s/ Kim S. PriceDated


Kim S. Price

President and Chief Executive Officer








This statement is authorized to be attached as an exhibit to the Report so that this statement will accompany the Report at such time as the Report is filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350.  It is not intended that this statement be deemed to be filed for purposes of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Citizens South Banking Corporation and will be retained by Citizens South Banking Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

February 27, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

130000 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

CHRISTOPER JAMES DONKERS, Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff-Appellant, Justices 

v SC: 130000 

 COA: 262852 

Wayne CC: 02-236657-DM

JODY LEE DONKERS, a/k/a

JODY LEE ROSA,

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 21, 2005 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

s0221 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

February 27, 2006 

Clerk
OT paczez>

IPAC Operational Metrics for May 2020

Volume by Transaction Type ]
Dollar Amount] %.of Total Dollar Amount] Number of Transachons| Sof Total Number of Transactions)

Fick investment & 16,241,726,002 456} 99.71%! 35.224!

Buy/Ssel 39,818.915,535} 0.24%! 31.264! sas1%

Benefits (SsTS) 3.028.706.495} 0.05%} 443)

|Check Aftermath (TRACS) 145,931,578} 0.00%4| 673)

|Zero Dollar a 0.00%} |

|Grand Total - May 2020 16,289.719.556.{ 100.00%| 107.609)
No. 49570.

#### Protest 101148-K of Mitchel F. Barnet (New York).

Opinion by

Walker, J.

It was stipulated that the hides are similar to those involved in *Rice*v. *United States*(11 Cust. Ct. 118, C. D. 807). The claim was therefore sustained.
No. 61791.

#### Victory Shipping Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 310889-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with rule 5 (b) of the rules of this court, as amended, the protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-1615

ADELINE COTTON RICKS,

Petitioner,

v.

NEWPORT NEWS SHIPBUILDING AND DRY DOCK COMPANY; DIRECTOR, 

OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS,

Respondents.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. 

(08-0251; 08-0877; 09-0567)

Submitted: December 23, 2010 Decided: February 1, 2011

Before NIEMEYER and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Adeline Cotton Ricks, Petitioner Pro Se. Lawrence Philip Postol, 

SEYFARTH SHAW, LLP, Washington, D.C.; Mark A. Reinhalter, UNITED 

STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C., for Respondents.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Adeline Cotton Ricks seeks review of the Benefits 

Review Board’s decision and order affirming the administrative 

law judge’s denial of black lung benefits pursuant to 30 U.S.C. 

§§ 901-945 (2006). Our review of the record discloses that the 

Board’s decision is based upon substantial evidence and is 

without reversible error. Accordingly, we deny the petition for 

review for the reasons stated by the Board. Ricks v. Newport 

News Shpbldg., Nos. 08-0251; 08-0877; 09-0567 (BRB May 19, 

2010). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

PETITION DENIED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

KATHY L. OAKES

: CIVIL ACTION

:

 v. :

:

HENKELS and MCCOY, et al. : NO. 02-2749

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 23rd day of December, 2002, in accordance with memorandum -

order dated December 10, 2002,

IT IS ORDERED that Judgment be and the same is hereby entered in favor of

defendants Henkels and McCoy, Inc., PECO Energy Company and Exelon Communications and

against the plaintiff, Kathy L. Oakes.

BY THE COURT

 ATTEST:

 Kathryne M. Crispell

 Deputy Clerk

Civ 1 (8/80)

Case 2:02-cv-02749-EL Document 46 Filed 12/23/2002 Page 1 of 1
#### Gregory A. LUCAS, Appellant, v. Benny O. HODGES, Administrator, Lorton Reformatory, et al.

No. 83-1099.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Aug. 10, 1984.

Before WALD and STARR, Circuit Judges, and MeGOWAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

On consideration of appellees’ unopposed motion to recall the mandate in *Lucas v. Hodges,*730 F.2d 1493 and to vacate that decision as moot, and the mandate of the Court having been recalled and returned, it is

ORDERED by the Court that the Opinion and Judgment of this Court filed on March 23, 1984 be, and the same hereby are, vacated and it is

FURTHER ORDERED by the Court that this case is remanded to the District Court with instructions to dismiss as moot. *See United States v. Munsingwear,*340 U.S. 36, 71 S.Ct. 104, 95 L.Ed. 36 (1950).

The Clerk is directed to transmit a certified copy of this Order to the District Court in lieu of formal mandate.
No. 59969.

#### W. X. Huber Co. *v.*United States,

protests 848710-G, etc. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Rao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that 20 percent of the merchandise consists of rags used chiefly for papermaking, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained with respect to said 20 percent of the merchandise.
In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

VANYA TAYLOR, on behalf of * No. 14-146V

ZT, a minor child, * Special Master Moran

 Petitioner, * 

 * Filed: March 27, 2015

v. * 

 * Attorneys’ fees and costs; award 

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * in the amount to which

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * respondent does not object.

 * 

 Respondent. * 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Roger A. Johnson, Johnson, Vorhees & Martucci, Joplin, MO, for Petitioner;

Justine Walters, United States Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

UNPUBLISHED DECISION ON FEES AND COSTS1

On March 27, 2015, respondent filed a stipulation of fact concerning final 

attorneys’ fees and costs in the above-captioned matter. Previously, petitioner 

informally submitted a draft application for attorneys’ fees and costs to respondent 

for review. Upon review of petitioner’s application, respondent raised objections 

to certain items. Based on subsequent discussions, petitioner amended her 

application to request $18,466.08, an amount to which respondent does not object. 

The Court awards this amount.

On February 24, 2014, Vanya Taylor, on behalf of her son, ZT filed a 

petition for compensation alleging tetanus- diphtheria- acellular pertussis (“Tdap”) 

vaccine which he received on July 25, 2011 caused him to suffer Guillain-Barré 

syndrome (“GBS”). Petitioner received compensation based upon the parties’ 

stipulation. Decision, filed Dec. 29, 2014. Because petitioner received 

 1 The E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (Dec. 17, 

2002), requires that the Court post this decision on its website. Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 18(b), 

the parties have 14 days to file a motion proposing redaction of medical information or other 

information described in 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4). Any redactions ordered by the special 

master will appear in the document posted on the website. 

1 

 
compensation, she is entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees and costs. 42 U.S.C. § 

300aa-15(e). 

Petitioner seeks a total of $18,466.08 in attorneys’ fees and costs for her 

counsel. Additionally, in compliance with General Order No. 9, petitioner states 

that she incurred no out-of-pocket litigation expenses while pursuing this claim. 

Respondent has no objection to the amount requested for attorneys’ fees and costs. 

After reviewing the request, the Court awards the following:

A lump sum of $18,466.08 in the form of a check made payable to 

petitioner and petitioner’s attorney, Roger A. Johnson, for attorneys’ 

fees and other litigation costs available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(e). 

The Court thanks the parties for their cooperative efforts in resolving this 

matter. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly. 

Any questions may be directed to my law clerk, Christina Gervasi, at (202) 

357-6521.

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

 s/Christian J. Moran

 Christian J. Moran

 Special Master

2
Case No. 8,366.

#### LINDSAY v. RIGGS.

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

December Term, 1811.

[Cited in Paul v. Lowery, Case No. 10.844, to the point that a deposition may be read in evidence in tlie circuit court of the District of Columbia which deposition purports to be taken before the superintendent of the city of Charleston, and is certified under the seal of the corporation, and taken in due form under the act of congress, without other proof of the fact that the superintendent was the magistrate of the city than is-contained in his own certificate and the official seal, and the further evidence introduced and proved by the testimony of a witness that the superintendent before whom the deposition was taken was the intendant and chief magistrate of the city of Charleston at the date of the certificate, and that he believed it was the seal of the corporation, but did not know the handwriting.]

[Also cited in a note to Waller v. Stewart, Case No. 17,109, upon the question whether the calling for and inspecting the books of the opposite party authorizes the owner to read them in evidence. if the party calling for them refuses to use them.]

[NOTE. This case was taken to the supreme court upon writ of error by one of the defendants, and the judgment of the circuit court was affirmed; but, in the opinion delivered therein by Mr. Justice Livingston, the two points to which the case was cited as noted above were not considered. Riggs v. Lindsay, 7 Cranch (11 U. S.) 50°.]
# C_2017195EN.01002602.xml

| 19.6.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 195/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 195/26

---

Judgment of the General Court of 26 April 2017 — OU v Commission

(Case T-569/16) (1)

1

((Civil service - Contract staff - Disciplinary proceedings - Suspension - Sums withheld from remuneration - Reprimand - Repayment - Article 24(4) of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations))

(2017/C 195/37)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: OU (represented by: J.-N. Louis and N. de Montigny, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Ehrbar and F. Simonetti, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the decision of the Commission of 13 March 2015 rejecting the applicant’s claim for repayment of the sums withheld from his remuneration during a period of six months as from 15 January 2007, and, second, repayment of those sums together with interest payable on them.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of 13 March 2015 by which the European Commission rejected the application of Mr OU for repayment of the sums withheld from his remuneration pursuant to the decision of the Commission of 14 December 2006; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of 13 March 2015 by which the European Commission rejected the application of Mr OU for repayment of the sums withheld from his remuneration pursuant to the decision of the Commission of 14 December 2006;

| 2. | Orders the Commission to repay to Mr OU the sums withheld from his remuneration pursuant to the decision of 14 December 2006; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Commission to repay to Mr OU the sums withheld from his remuneration pursuant to the decision of 14 December 2006;

| 3. | Orders the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 211, 13.6.2016 (case initially registered before the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union under number F-141/15 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).

1

---
No. 48436.

#### Protests 793670-G, etc., of J. Fragola & Son et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

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

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of ProtoKinetix, Inc., a
Nevada corporation, (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), I, Ross L. Senior, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify the following pursuant to Section 18, U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002:

| | 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/ Ross L. Senior                                 
|---------------------------------------------------
|Ross L. Senior                                     
|Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
|                                                   
|March 25, 2011                                     

---
# C_2017283EN.01002901.xml

| 28.8.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 283/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 283/29

---

Order of the President of the Court of 18 May 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Versailles — France) — Green Yellow Canet en Roussillon SNC (C-583/16), Green Yellow Hyères Sup SNC (C-584/16) v Enedis, SA, in the presence of: Axa Corporate Solutions Assurances SA

(Joined Cases C-583/16 and C-584/16) (1)

1

(2017/C 283/42)

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 38, 6.2.2017.

1

---
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

** **

**CertificationPursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, As Adopted Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of AXT, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterended September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Philip C. S. Yin, ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“Section 906”), that, to the best of myknowledge:

 

(1)The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and

 

(2)The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| Dated: November 7, 2007 | By:    | /s/ Philip C. S. Yin      |
|-------------------------|--------|---------------------------|
|                    |   | Philip C. S. Yin          |
|                    |   | Chairman of the Board and |
|                    |   | Chief Executive Officer   |

 

 

----
# C_2017283EN.01005002.xml

| 28.8.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 283/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 283/50

---

Order of the General Court of 3 July 2017 — De Nicola v EIB

(Case T-669/16 P) (1)

1

((Appeal - EIB staff - Sickness insurance - Refusal to reimburse medical expenses - Laser therapy - Action for annulment and damages))

(2017/C 283/78)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Carlo De Nicola (Strassen, Luxembourg) (represented by: G. Ferabecoli, lawyer)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Investment Bank (EIB) (represented by: T. Gilliams and G. Faedo, acting as Agents, and by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 21 July 2016, De Nicola v EIB (F-82/15, EU:F:2016:166), seeking to have that judgment set aside in part.

De Nicola

EIB

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Mr Carlo De Nicola shall bear his own costs and shall pay those incurred by the European Investment Bank (EIB) in the present appeal. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Carlo De Nicola shall bear his own costs and shall pay those incurred by the European Investment Bank (EIB) in the present appeal.

---

(1)  OJ C 410, 7.11.2016.

1

---