alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2007235EN.01000902.xml

| 6.10.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 235/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.10.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/9

---

Action brought on 18 July 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland

(Case C-335/07)

(2007/C 235/15)

Language of the case: Finnish

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: I. Koskinen, M. Patakia and S. Pardo Quintillán, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Republic of Finland

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | declare that, by failing to require that urban waste water entering collecting systems from all agglomerations of more than 10 000 p.e be subject to more stringent treatment, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(2), (3) and (5) of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment (1); |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by failing to require that urban waste water entering collecting systems from all agglomerations of more than 10 000 p.e be subject to more stringent treatment, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(2), (3) and (5) of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment (1);

1

| — | order the Republic of Finland to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Republic of Finland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

All aquatic environments in Finland must be regarded as ‘sensitive areas’ within the meaning of Directive 91/271/EEC. It follows that the obligation to ensure that all urban waste waters entering collecting systems which originate from agglomerations of more than 10 000 p.e are to be subject to more stringent treatment is applicable to all Finnish territory. Nitrogen is an important factor in eutrophication in parts of Selkämeri and a dominant factor in Saaristomeri and the Gulf of Finland. In the springtime, the capacity to treat nitrogen is reduced in the central area of the Baltic Sea. The eutrophication in those areas is indisputable. A reduction in the nitrogen and phosphorus loads would help to prevent phytoplankton bloom in the spring and summer. The Republic of Finland has infringed Article 5(2), (3) and (5) of Directive 91/271/EEC in that it failed to ensure that all nitrogen was removed from all urban waste water entering collection systems and which originate from agglomerations of more than 10 000 p.e.

---

(1)  OJ 1991 L 135, p. 40.

1

---
Jump to navigation

            - About
            - Browse Collections
            - Advanced Search
            - Contact

## You are here

- Home  › 
- Browse Collections  › 
- U.S. Government Posters

# America the beautiful: Ohio

                - U.S. Government Posters

## Description

                    -           Title        
                    -  America the beautiful: Ohio 
                    -           Alternative Title        
                    -  Woodland, grassland, and water conservation, Monroe soil and water conservation district 
                    -           Creator        
                    -  United States. Department of Agriculture 
                    -           Subject: Time        
                    -  1960-1970 
                    -           Subject: Place        
                    -  United States 
                    -           Country        
                    -  United States 
                    -           State        
                    -  Ohio 
                    -           Physical Description        
                    -  150 × 60 cm 
                    -           Number of Pages        
                    -  1 
                    -           Host institution        
                    -  University of Iowa. Libraries. Government Publications 
                    -           Digitization Specifications        
                    -  Scanned with Ideal Contex Magnum G600 54 Plus at 300 ppi, 24-bit color. Archival tiff image available. 
                    -           Rights Management        
                    -  This is a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. 
                    -           Contact Information        
                    -  Please contact the Government Publications Department at The University of Iowa Libraries: lib-govpub@uiowa.edu 
                    -           Item Type (AAT)        
                    -  Posters 
                    -           Item Type (IMT)        
                    -  jpeg 
                    -           Identifier        
                    -  A57.8-2.Oh3.jpg 
                    -           OCLC Collection Number        
                    -  429489521 

                - Contact the Libraries
                - Library locations & hours
                - News & Events
                - Help using the Libraries
                - Assistance for people with disabilities
                - Our diversity statement
                - Thank a Librarian
                - Web site/page feedback  OR  general suggestions
                -  

                -  
                - 100 Main Library (LIB)
                - 125 West Washington St.
                - Iowa City, IA 52242-1420
                - 319-335-5299 (Service Desk)
                - ©2020  The University of Iowa
                -
# C_2007211EN.01003101.xml

| 8.9.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.9.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/31

---

Action brought on 25 July 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-346/07)

(2007/C 211/60)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Zavvos and P. Dejmek)

Applicant:

Defendant: Hellenic Republic

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | declaration that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/50/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 amending Council Directive 96/48/EC on the interoperability of the trans-European high-speed rail system and Directive 2001/16/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the interoperability of the trans-European conventional rail system, or in any event by not informing the Commission of such measures, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declaration that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/50/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 amending Council Directive 96/48/EC on the interoperability of the trans-European high-speed rail system and Directive 2001/16/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the interoperability of the trans-European conventional rail system, or in any event by not informing the Commission of such measures, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

1

| — | an order that the Hellenic Republic pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

an order that the Hellenic Republic pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for transposing Directive 2004/50/EC into national law expired on 30 April 2006.

---

(1)  OJ L 164 of 30.4.2004, p. 114.

1

---
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 89 

To amend title 28, United States Code, to prohibit the issuance of national 

injunctions, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 9, 2023 

Mr. BIGGS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 28, United States Code, to prohibit the 

issuance of national injunctions, 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 ‘‘Injunctive Authority 

5 Clarification Act of 2023’’. 

6 SEC. 2. ORDERS PURPORTING TO RESTRAIN ENFORCE7 MENT AGAINST NON-PARTIES. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 155 of title 28, United 

9 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the fol10 lowing: 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 89 IH

1 ‘‘§ 2285. Orders purporting to restrain enforcement 

2 against non-parties 

3 ‘‘No court of the United States (and no district court 

4 of the Virgin Islands, Guam, or the Northern Mariana Is5 lands) shall issue an order that purports to restrain the 

6 enforcement against a non-party of any statute, regula7 tion, order, or similar authority, unless the non-party is 

8 represented by a party acting in a representative capacity 

9 pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.’’. 

10 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections 

11 for chapter 155 of title 28, United States Code, is amend12 ed by inserting after the item relating to section 2285 the 

13 following: 

‘‘2285. Orders purporting to restrain enforcement against non-parties.’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
##### 



Exhibit 31.2 Certification of Chief Financial OfficerPursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002  I, Michael D. Bornak, Chief Financial Officer, certify that:1.
    
    I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Portec Rail
Products, Inc.;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;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of
the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant
and have:  a)
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused
such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the
registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known
to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this report is being prepared;b)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions
about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures,
as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such
evaluation; andc)
    
    disclosed in this report any change in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth
fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrants internal control over financial reporting; and  5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,
to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board
of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):  a)
    
    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
design or operation of internal control over financial reporting
which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants
ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; andb)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management
or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting. August 4, 2004
    
    /s/ Michael D. BornakDateMichael D. BornakChief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 68 (Tuesday, April 10, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 17883]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-6723]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army; Corps of Engineers


Notice of Availability for the Final Environmental Impact 
Statement for Hemet/San Jacinto Integrated Recharge and Recovery 
Project, Riverside County, CA

AGENCY: Department of the Army--U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District 
(Regulatory Division), in coordination with the Eastern Municipal Water 
District (EMWD), has completed a Final Environmental Impact Statement 
(EIS) for the Hemet/San Jacinto Integrated Recharge and Recovery 
Project. EMWD requires authorization pursuant to Section 404 of the 
Clean Water Act for 15.9 acres of fill into waters of the U.S.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions or comments concerning the 
Final EIS should be directed to Dr. Daniel P. Swenson, Regulatory 
Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, P.O. Box 532711, Los Angeles, 
CA, 90053, (213) 452-3414. Comments should be submitted no later than 
May 10, 2007.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: None.

Mark Durham,
Acting Chief, Regulatory Division.
[FR Doc. E7-6723 Filed 4-9-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3710-KF-P
A90A0488.

#### UNITED CONTROLS, INC. v. ALPHA SYSTEMS, INC.

(393 SE2d 694)

Deen, Presiding Judge.

The appellee, Alpha Systems, Inc., commenced this action against the appellant, United Controls, Inc., to recover employee recruitment fees due under an express oral contract. The appellee sought a $9,600 fee, representing 30 percent of an estimated $32,000 salary to be paid the recruited employee, but the jury awarded only $4,800. The appellant does not attack the amount of the verdict, but rather its viability, contending that the jury could have reached a verdict only by applying quantum meruit as a theory of recovery.

The appellant correctly notes that while a party may proceed in both contract and quantum meruit in a two-count petition, “[t]here can be no recovery on quantum meruit when the action is based on an express contract.” *Stowers v. Hall,*159 Ga. App. 501 (283 SE2d 714) (1981). That, however, is not the case here. The appellee proceeded purely on the alleged contract, and the trial court charged the jury only on contract. Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the testimony of the appellee’s president and sole owner generally describing the efforts he took to earn his fee, and the testimony of another witness concerning the average fees charged by employee recruiters, did not constitute evidence of a quantum meruit claim. Further, the fact that the jury awarded the appellee less than what it could have recovered under the contract provides the appellant with no basis to complain. *Campbell v. Alford,*155 Ga. App. 689 (2) (272 SE2d 553) (1980).

Because it does not appear that there was any valid reason for the appellant to anticipate reversal of the trial court’s judgment, we conclude that the appeal was brought only for purposes of delay. Accordingly, we grant the appellee’s motion for ten percent damages for frivolous appeal, pursuant to OCGA § 5-6-6. *Karsman v. Portman,*173 Ga. App. 108 (325 SE2d 608) (1984).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Pope and Beasley, JJ., concur.*

*332Decided April 5, 1990.

*Murray, Temple & Dinges, William D. Strickland,*for appellant.

*Smith & Polstra, Charles L. Dunn, Cynthia L. Weese,*for appellee.
No. 54784.

#### Hecht Levis & Kahn, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 150949-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
#### The New York and Western Union Telegraph Company, *Respondent, v.*Hugh J. Jewett, *Appellant.*

— Order affirmed, with costs. Opinion *Per Curiam.*
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, David G. Moffat, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of First National Banc, Inc.; 

 

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 tomake 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; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and we have: 

 

a) designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

 

b) [paragraph omitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-8238 and 34-47986] 

 

c) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

 

c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function): 

 

a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely 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 or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: November14, 2004
October 25, 1950

No. 54786.

#### Fred Benioff *v.*United States,

petitions 6671-R and 6695-R.

Peti-

tioner’s application for rehearing denied.
**Exhibit      32.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

|   | (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: November                  14,                  2006 | By:                            | /s/ Tianfu                  Yang |
|----------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------|
|                                                           | Tianfu                  Yang             |
|                                                           | Chief                  Executive Officer |

| Date: November                  14,                  2006 | By:                            | /s/ Zedong                  Xu |
|----------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------|
|                                                           | Zedong                  Xu               |
|                                                           | Chief                  Financial Officer |

----
Before the Second Division,

May 17, 1961

No. 65641.

#### The Andrew Fisher Cycle Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 309869-K, etc. (Tampa).

*486Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues herein are similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Schmidt Pritchard & Co. et al.*(47 C.C.P.A. 152, C.A.D. 750), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
(Reap. Dec. 9231)

#### Leslie B. Canion *v.*United States

Entry No. 4638-H.

(Decided October 10, 1958)

*Sharretts, Paley & Carter*for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Johnson, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon an agreed statement of fact entered into by and between counsel for tbe respective parties hereto.

Upon the agreed facts I find the foreign value, as that value is defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by section 8 of the Customs Administrative Act of 1938, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such value was the invoice unit values, plus 12.44 per centum, plus the cost of packing as found by the appraiser. Judgment will be entered accordingly.