alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2007155EN.01003602.xml

| 7.7.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.7.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/36

---

Action brought on 7 May 2007 — COFAC v Commission

(Case T-159/07)

(2007/C 155/66)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: COFAC — Cooperativa de Formação e Animação Cultural, crl (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: Luís Gomes, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | annulment, pursuant to Article 230 EC, of Commission Decision D(2004) 24253 of 9 November 2004, reducing the amount of the financial assistance granted by the European Social Fund (‘the ESF’) to the applicant by Decision C(87) 0860 of 30 April 1987 (file No 880707 P1); |
| --- | --- |

—

annulment, pursuant to Article 230 EC, of Commission Decision D(2004) 24253 of 9 November 2004, reducing the amount of the financial assistance granted by the European Social Fund (‘the ESF’) to the applicant by Decision C(87) 0860 of 30 April 1987 (file No 880707 P1);

| — | an order that the Commission should pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

an order that the Commission should pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those put forward in Case T-158/07.

---
EXHIBIT 32.1

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Quanta Capital Holdings Ltd. (the ‘‘Company’’) on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the ‘‘Report’’) and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted in Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Peter D. Johnson, Chief Executive Officer, certify that to the best of my knowledge:

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

| |    |                                                                                                                                                     
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: May 8, 2008

/s/ Peter D. Johnson
Peter D. Johnson
(Principal Executive Officer)

This certification is not deemed to be ‘‘filed’’ for purposes of section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section. This certification is not deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or Securities Exchange Act of 1934, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.

---
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 10(a)

            STEPHEN E. ROTH
      DIRECT LINE: (202) 383-0158
       Internet: sroth@sablaw.com



                                April 26, 2001



Board of Directors
GE Life and Annuity Assurance Company
6610 W. Broad Street
Richmond, VA  23230

          Re   GE Life & Annuity Separate Account 4
               ------------------------------------

Ladies and Gentlemen:

          We hereby consent to the reference to our name under the caption
"Legal Matters" in the Statement of Additional Information filed as part of
Post-Effective Amendment No. 24 to the Registration Statement on Form N-4 filed
by GE Life & Annuity Separate Account 4 for certain flexible premium variable
deferred annuity contracts (File No. 33-17428).  In giving this consent, we do
not admit that we are in the category of persons whose consent is required under
Section 7 of the Securities Act of 1933.

                              Very truly yours,

                              SUTHERLAND ASBILL & BRENNAN LLP



                              By:/s/ STEPHEN E. ROTH
                                 --------------------------------
                                  Stephen E. Roth
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8658 

To require a report by the Transportation Security Administration on digital 

identity ecosystems, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 7, 2024 

Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Homeland Security 

A BILL 

To require a report by the Transportation Security Administration on digital identity ecosystems, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Emerging Digital Iden5 tity Ecosystem Report Act of 2024’’. 

6 SEC. 2. TSA REPORT ON DIGITAL IDENTITY ECOSYSTEMS. 

7 Not later than 180 days after the date of the enact8 ment of this Act, the Administrator of the Transportation 

9 Security Administration shall submit to the Committee on 

10 Homeland Security of the House of Representatives and 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8658 IH

1 the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 

2 Affairs of the Senate a report describing the current state 

3 of digital identity ecosystems and the homeland security 

4 value of emerging digital identity ecosystems in the trans5 portation sector, including related benefits and risks, and 

6 how such current and emerging ecosystems may better 

7 protect homeland security and increase the competitive ad8 vantage of the United States. Such report shall, to the 

9 maximum extent practicable, include perspectives from the 

10 private sector and State, local, Tribal, and territorial gov11 ernments relating thereto. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
#### The People *v.*Paul Madden and Patrick Norton.

*(New York Common Pleas, General Term,*

*Filed February 10, 1890.)*

Recognizance—Forfeiture—Yacation of.

Where the defendant, after forfeiture of his recognizance, pleads guilty and pays the fine imposed, and the district attorney certifies that the people have lost no rights, the judgment entered upon the forfeiture should be vacated.

Application for order vacating judgment entered upon a forfeited recognizance.

*J. R. Fellows,*for people; *H. Hartman,*for def’ts.

Per Curiam.

Madden was arrested for violation of the excise laws, and held for bail in $100. On January 13, 1890, the case was called for trial in the court of special sessions, and upon Madden’s failure to appear the bail was declared forfeited, and judgment entered against the surety on the following day. Later in the same day on which the forfeiture occurred Madden appeared for trial, and upon his confession was adjudged guilty and fined $50, which was immediately paid. It also appears from the certificates of the district attorney and deputy sheriff that the people have lost no rights, and that all expense incurred by such forfeiture has been paid.

The application should be granted.

Larremore, Ch. J., Bookstaver and Bischoff, JJ., concur.
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.                  

###### Department of Agriculture

###### Foreign Agricultural Service 

# AGENCY:

Foreign Agricultural Service, USDA. 

# ACTION:

Notice. 

On March 22, 2007, the Administrator, Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS), denied a petition for trade adjustment assistance (TAA) for Michigan natural honey, white or lighter, that was filed on February 16, 2007, by a group of apiarists. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Upon investigation, the Administrator determined that prices did not decline by at least 20 percent for the most recent marketing year compared to previous 5-year average. During the 2005 marketing year, prices were 89.6 percent of the 5-year base average. Since producer prices did not decline by at least 20 percent during the most recent marketing year, the petition did not meet the price decline requirement, a condition required for certifying a petition for TAA. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT:

                        Jean-Louis Pajot, Coordinator, Trade Adjustment Assistance for Farmers, FAS, USDA, (202) 720-2916, e-mail:                         *trade.adjustment@fas.usda.gov*.                     

Dated: March 23, 2007. 

W. Kirk Miller, 

Administrator, Foreign Agricultural Service.

 [FR Doc. E7-6463 Filed 4-5-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410-10-P
### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 22 - 0335

_________________ LARRY JAMES LEPPEK,

Plaintiff and Appellant, v. EVELYN MAE SHUEY,

Defendant and Appellee. O R D E R

_________________ On August 31 , 2022, the mediator for this appeal filed a report stating that the case has settled. Nothing further has been filed. Therefore, and pursuant to M. R. App. P. 7(7)(b), IT IS ORDERED that this appeal is DISMISSED.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

October 3 2022

10/03/2022
Case Number: DA 22-0335
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT

TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Dynamic Response Group, Inc; (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Melissa K. Rice , Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 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 condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                       
|-----------------------
|Dated: March 31, 2008  
|                       
|/s/ Melissa K. Rice    
|Melissa K. Rice,       
|Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 31.2







CERTIFICATION







I, J. Miguel Fernandez de Castro, certify that:



| | 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to annual report on Form 10-K of ExamWorks Group, Inc.; and                                                                                                                                                                                                          
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           
| | 2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.





|Date: April 29, 2016 |                                 
|-------------------- | --------------------------------
|                     | s/ J. Miguel Fernandez de Castro
|                     | J. Miguel Fernandez de Castro   
|                     | Chief Financial Officer
#### Lorraine Maiorano et al., Respondents, v Price Chopper Operating Company, Inc., Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 413]

—Car-dona, P. J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Williams, J.), entered December 6, 1994 in Schenectady County, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

On June 22, 1992, plaintiff Lorraine Maiorano (hereinafter plaintiff) was allegedly injured when she stepped on a banana, slipped and fell while approaching the check out lanes after shopping in defendant’s grocery store, resulting in this action. After depositions of defendant’s employees indicated that the area in which plaintiff fell had been swept within 5 to 10 minutes of the accident, defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the action. Finding an issue of fact as to the amount of time the banana was on the floor based on plaintiffs pretrial testimony that the banana was brown in color, Supreme Court denied the motion and this appeal ensued.

We reverse. The coloration of the banana, whether brown, or brown and yellow as plaintiff described it, fails to support the contention that the banana had been on the floor for any appreciable period of time *(see, Anderson v Klein’s Foods,*73 NY2d 835, *affg on mem below*139 AD2d 904; *Bashaw v Rite*
      *699
      *Aid,*207 AD2d 632; *Browne v Big V Supermarkets,*188 AD2d 798, 799, *lv denied*81 NY2d 708). Plaintiffs speculate that the banana had remained on the floor for the length of time necessary for it to turn brown from whatever color it was when it fell and, accordingly, had to have been missed when the floor was swept shortly before the accident. The coloration evidence, however, is just as consistent with the theory that someone had dropped a ripe banana shortly before plaintiff stepped on it.

Defendant made a prima facie showing that it did not create the condition or have actual or constructive notice of the banana’s presence at the time of the accident. It was then incumbent upon plaintiffs to make an affirmative evidentiary showing that a genuine issue of fact existed *(see, Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557, 563). Mere conclusions based upon surmise, conjecture, speculation or assertions are without probative value *(see, Parks v Greenberg,*161 AD2d 467, 468-469, *appeal dismissed*76 NY2d 888, *lv denied*76 NY2d 712). As plaintiffs opposing affidavit was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact, the motion should have been granted.

Mikoll, Mercure, Yesawich Jr. and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, motion granted, summary judgment awarded to defendant and complaint dismissed.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

April 27, 2010 

0419 

Order 

 

April 27, 2010 

140402 

NEWARK MORNING LEDGER COMPANY, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 140402 

 COA: 283723 

Ct of Claims: 00-017603-CM 

DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 8, 2009 

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

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
No. 56051.

protests 165170-K and 152104-K (New York).

#### Bridgetts & Co., Inc., and Charles Hall, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

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



Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER REGARDING PERIODIC REPORT CONTAINING
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS I, Carl E. Vogel, the Chief Executive Officer of CCH II, LLC and CCH II
Capital Corp. (collectively, the Company) in compliance with 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, hereby certify that, the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
period ended June 30, 2004 (the Report) filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission:  
    
    fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company. /s/ Carl E. Vogel

Carl E. Vogel
Chief Executive Officer
August 13, 2004
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack,

 Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh

Elizabeth M. Welch,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

 

April 28, 2021

Order 

Clerk

April 28, 2021

160813(103)

GRANT BAUSERMAN, KARL WILLIAMS 

and TEDDY BROE, on Behalf of Themselves 

and All Others Similarly Situated,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

SC: 160813

v COA: 333181

Ct of Claims: 15-000202-MM

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE AGENCY,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of defendant-appellant to extend the time 

for filing its supplement reply is GRANTED. The supplemental reply will be accepted as 

timely filed if submitted on or before May 18, 2021.
Exhibit 32
 Certification pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  (1)
    
    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 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.
  November 6, 2009
    /s/ Richard J. JarosinskiDate
    Richard J. Jarosinski, President and Chief Executive  OfficerNovember 6, 2009
    /s/ John N. PesarsickDate
    John N. Pesarsick, Chief Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">Colin L. Anderson, Appellant,<br><br>against<br><br>Cecil R. Beckford, Respondent.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Mitchell Dranow, Esq., for appellant.Richard T. Lau &amp; Associates (Marcella G. Crewe, Esq.), for respondent.</p><p>Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Jodi Orlow, J.), entered May 25, 2016. The order granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.</p><p>ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.</p><p>In this action to recover for personal injuries allegedly sustained in a motor vehicle accident, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court which granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.</p><p>Plaintiff raises no issue with the Civil Court's determination that defendant met his prima facie burden of showing that plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law ยง 5102 (d) as a result of the accident at issue (<i>see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys.</i>, 98 NY2d 345 [2002]; <i>Gaddy v Eyler</i>, 79 NY2d 955 [1992]). Upon a review of the record before us, we find that plaintiff's submissions were insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact with respect to the permanent consequential limitation of use (<i>see Abreu v Metropolitan Transp. Auth.</i>, 117 AD3d 972 [2014]) and significant limitation of use (<i>see Sukalic v Ozone</i>, 136 AD3d 1018 [2016]) categories of serious injury. Moreover, neither plaintiff nor his neurologist proffered evidence demonstrating that plaintiff sustained "a medically determined injury or impairment of a non-permanent nature which had prevent[ed] [plaintiff] from performing substantially all of the material acts which constitute [plaintiff's] usual and customary daily activities for not less than 90 days during the 180 days immediately following the occurrence of <font color="FF0000">[*2]</font>the injury or impairment" (Insurance Law ยง 5102 [d]).</p><p>Accordingly, the order is affirmed.</p><p>PESCE, P.J., WESTON and ELLIOT, JJ., concur.</p><br>ENTER:<br>Paul Kenny<br>Chief Clerk<br>Decision Date: March 09, 2018<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>