alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2017053EN.01001401.xml

| 20.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 53/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 53/14

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 21 December 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Bietergemeinschaft Technische Gebäudebetreuung GesmbH und Caverion Österreich GmbH v Universität für Bodenkultur Wien, VAMED Management und Service GmbH & Co. KG in Wien

(Case C-355/15) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public procurement - Directive 89/665/EEC - Review procedures in the area of public procurement - Article 1(3) - Legal interest in bringing proceedings - Article 2a(2) - Concept of a ‘tenderer concerned’ - Right of a tenderer definitively excluded by the contracting authority to seek review of a subsequent award decision))

(2017/C 053/16)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Bietergemeinschaft Technische Gebäudebetreuung GesmbH und Caverion Österreich GmbH

Applicant:

Defendants: Universität für Bodenkultur Wien, VAMED Management und Service GmbH & Co. KG in Wien

Defendants:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(3) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts, as amended by Directive 2007/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2007, must be interpreted as not precluding a tenderer who has been excluded from a public procurement procedure by a decision of the contracting authority which has become final from being refused access to a review of the decision awarding the public contract concerned and of the conclusion of the contract where only that unsuccessful tenderer and the successful tenderer submitted bids and the unsuccessful tenderer maintains that the successful tenderer’s bid should also have been rejected.

---

(1)  OJ C 320, 28.9.2015.

1

---
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan



### December 27, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice


### 129465 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan 

### PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices



### v SC: 129465 COA: 260925 Monroe CC: 03-032747-FC MORIAH EDWARD YOUNG, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal th e July 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.

p1219 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

December 27, 2005

Clerk
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 Justice

###### Drug Enforcement Administration 

Pursuant to § 1301.33(a) of Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this is notice that on March 1, 2007, Organichem Corporation, 33 Riverside Avenue, Rensselaer, New York 12144, made application by letter to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of Oxymorphone (9652), a basic class of controlled substance listed in schedule II. 

The company plans on manufacturing the listed controlled substance in bulk for sale to its customers. 

Any other such applicant and any person who is presently registered with DEA to manufacture such a substance may file comments or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.33(a). 

Any such written comments or objections being sent via regular mail should be addressed, in quintuplicate, to the Drug Enforcement Administration, Office of Diversion Control, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative (ODL), Washington, DC 20537, or any being sent via express mail should be sent to Drug Enforcement Administration, Office of Diversion Control, Federal Register Representative (ODL), 2401 Jefferson-Davis Highway, Alexandria, Virginia 22301; and must be filed no later than June 29, 2007. 

Dated: April 17, 2007. 

Joseph T. Rannazzisi, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control  Drug Enforcement Administration.

 [FR Doc. E7-8131 Filed 4-27-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**





**Certification
      of Chief Financial Officer**


**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 on Form 10-Q of NYFIX, Inc. for the
      quarterly period ended September 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Steven R. Vigliotti, as
      Chief Financial Officer of NYFIX, Inc., hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
      Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
      of
      2002, that, to the best of his knowledge, 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 NYFIX,
      Inc.





By:  /S/
                  Steven R. Vigliotti
                  Steven
                    R. Vigliotti
                  Chief
                    Financial Officer


Dated:
      August 6, 2007
2012 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

10-16-2012

Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner Sm v. Cheryl

Schwarzwaelder

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 11-2605

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2012

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2012 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner Sm v. Cheryl Schwarzwaelder" (2012). 2012 Decisions. Paper 282.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2012/282
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

October 4, 2012

No. 11-2605

MERRILL LYNCH PIERCE FENNER & SMITH INCORPORATED,

 Appellant

v.

CHERYL SCHWARZWAELDER

(W.D. Pa. Nos. 2-11-cv-00107 and No. 2-11-cv-00162)

Present: SLOVITER and VANASKIE, Circuit Judges

1. Appellee’s Petition for Reconstitution of Panel or, Alternatively, for Rehearing

by the Panel.

2. Appellant’s Answer to the Petition for Rehearing

Respectfully,

Clerk

_________________________________ORDER_______________________________

The foregoing petition for panel rehearing and reconstitution of the panel is granted. Oral 

argument will be scheduled at the convenience of the panel.

By the Court,

s/ Thomas I. Vanaskie

Circuit Judge

Dated: October 16, 2012

Tnh/cc: Joseph H. Chivers, III, Esq.

Patricia A. Tsipras, Esq.

Lauren D. Rushak, Esq.

Michael J. Fortunato, Esq.
Bremerton Bridge Project at State Highways 16 and 160

Bremerton Bridge project involves collecting and analyzing data for comparison to a

mathematical model and to provide retrofitting guidelines.

Current Status

Eleven sets of data were collected on September 23, 1998 using 3 sets of recorders. These

recorders were placed on the North side of the bridge (see detailed drawings for exact

location) to record accelerations of dynamic loads. There were three types of dynamic

loading:

1. Normal traffic loads.

2. Slow moving truck.

3. Fast moving truck, suddenly stopping at different locations.

As of now we are analyzing the data using traditional Fourier analysis, as well as state of the

art system identification and signal processing techniques.

Please Note: Web site will be updated as new information becomes available. Please check

back periodically.

Region Location Map

Click in box to see local map

Urban | PACNW | Earthquake Hazards | USGS

This URL is: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/pacnw/urban/bremerton/index.html

Last modified Thursday, March 29, 2001

Bremerton Bridge Introduction Page 1 of 1

http://web.archive.org/web/20060930183609/http:/earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/pacnw/hazmap/urban/bremerton/index.... 7/13/2012
III 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 158 

Expressing the sense of the Senate that the President should designate 

the week beginning September 11, 2005, as ‘‘National Historically Black 

Colleges and Universities Week’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 26, 2005 

Mr. GRAHAM (for himself, Mr. ALLARD, Mr. ALLEN, Mr. BAYH, Mr. 

BUNNING, Mr. CHAMBLISS, Mr. COCHRAN, Mr. DEMINT, Mr. DEWINE, 

Mrs. DOLE, Mr. DODD, Mr. DURBIN, Mrs. HUTCHISON, Mr. ISAKSON, 

Mr. KERRY, Ms. LANDRIEU, Mr. LOTT, Ms. MIKULSKI, Mr. SANTORUM, 

Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. SPECTER, Mr. TALENT, Mr. VOINOVICH, Mr. SCHUMER, Mr. BROWNBACK, Mr. OBAMA, Mr. BURR, Mr. SALAZAR, Mr. 

VITTER, Mr. BIDEN, Mr. ALEXANDER, and Mr. MARTINEZ) submitted 

the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

JULY 27, 2005 

Committee discharged; considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of the Senate that the President should 

designate the week beginning September 11, 2005, as 

‘‘National Historically Black Colleges and Universities 

Week’’. 

Whereas there are 105 historically Black colleges and universities in the United States; 
2 

SRES 158 ATS 

Whereas historically Black colleges and universities provide 

the quality education essential to full participation in a 

complex, highly technological society; 

Whereas historically Black colleges and universities have a 

rich heritage and have played a prominent role in the history of the United States; 

Whereas historically Black colleges and universities have allowed many underprivileged students to attain their full 

potential through higher education; and 

Whereas the achievements and goals of historically Black colleges and universities are deserving of national recognition: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, 

2 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF NATIONAL HISTORICALLY 

3 BLACK COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES WEEK. 

4 (a) SENSE OF THE SENATE.—It is the sense of the 

5 Senate that the President should designate the week be6 ginning September 11, 2005, as ‘‘National Historically 

7 Black Colleges and Universities Week’’. 

8 (b) PROCLAMATION.—The Senate requests the Presi9 dent to issue a proclamation— 

10 (1) designating the week beginning September 

11 11, 2005, as ‘‘National Historically Black Colleges 

12 and Universities Week’’; and 

13 (2) calling on the people of the United States 

14 and interested groups to observe the week with ap15 propriate ceremonies, activities, and programs to 
3 

SRES 158 ATS 

1 demonstrate support for historically Black colleges 

2 and universities in the United States. 

Æ
EXHIBIT 32.2

**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 United-Guardian, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert S. Rubinger, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, to the best of my knowledge and belief, and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (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.
# C_2016145EN.01001201.xml

| 25.4.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 145/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.4.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 145/12

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 February 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Salutas Pharma GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hanover

(Case C-124/15) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common Customs Tariff - Tariff classification - Combined Nomenclature - Heading 3004 - Effervescent tablets containing 500 mg of calcium - Level of substance per recommended daily dose significantly higher than the recommended daily allowance to maintain general health or well-being))

(2016/C 145/13)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Salutas Pharma GmbH

Applicant:

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hanover

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and the statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1006/2011 of 27 September 2011 must be interpreted as meaning that a product, such as effervescent tablets with a calcium content of 500 mg per tablet that is used for the prevention and treatment of a calcium deficiency and to support a special therapy for the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis, and for which the maximum recommended daily dose for adults indicated on the label is 1 500 mg, falls within heading 3004 of that nomenclature.

---

(1)  OJ C 178, 1.6.2015.

1

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

SAVOEUNG LEANG,

Petitioner

v.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, 

BUREAU OF DRIVER LICENSING,

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 852 MAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 5th day of June, 2019, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED. Motion for Supersedeas is DENIED.
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v LUCKY A. GOLDBERG, Seaman Recruit, U. S. Navy, Appellant

16 USCMA 627, 37 CMR 247

No. 19,975

April 21, 1967

*Major L. G. Bohlen,*USMC, was on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Major Ernest B. Wright,*USMC, was on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

FeRguson,Judge:

Tried before a special court-martial convened at Pensacola, Florida, by the Commanding Officer, U. S. Naval Air Station, the accused was found guilty of disrespect to a superior petty officer, who was then in the execution of his office, in violation of Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 91, 10 USC § 891. He was sentenced to bad-conduct discharge, confinement at hard labor for three months, and forfeiture of $54.00 per month for three months. The convening authority approved the sentence. The supervisory authority suspended the bad-conduct discharge, with provision for automatic remission. The board of review affirmed. We granted accused’s petition for review on the basis of the president’s instructions on mental responsibility, which included reference, as a controlling factor, to the so-called “policeman at the elbow test.”

The charge against the accused arose out of an emotional imbroglio with a brig guard. Psychiatric testimony was received to the effect that, in such a situation, the accused was unable, because of his mental condition, to adhere to the right. Thus, as the board of review found, the issue of mental responsibility was “clearly before the court below.” As the issue was thus raised, it was prejudicial error for the president to instruct the court-martial, as he did, that if “accused would not have committed the act had the circumstances been such that immediate detection and apprehension were certain, he cannot be said to have acted under an irre-sistable [sic] impulse.” United States v Jensen, 14 USCMA 353, 34 CMR 133; United States v Jordan, 14 USCMA 393, 34 CMR 173; United States v Moore, 14 USCMA 418, 34 CMR 198.

The decision of the board of review is reversed, and the record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Navy. A rehearing may be ordered.

Judge Kilday concurs.

*628Quinn, Chief Judge

(dissenting) :

In my opinion, the challenged instruction presents no fair risk of prejudice to the accused and, therefore, does not justify reversal of an otherwise unimpeachable conviction. See my dissent in United States v Mathis, 15 USCMA 130, 134, 35 CMR 102; United States v Hacker, 15 USCMA 419, 35 CMR 391.

The erroneous instruction is as follows: “If the accused would not have committed the act had the circumstances been such that immediate detection and apprehension were certain, he cannot be said to have acted under an irresistable [sic] impulse.” Since the accused committed the offense in the brig against the turnkey of the brig, “detection and apprehension” were absolutely certain. Consequently, the instruction was, if anything, beneficial to the accused. I would affirm the decision of the board of review.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

LOUIS N. MCCUTCHEN,

Appellant,

v.

NEW PENN FINANCIAL, LLC, d/b/a SHELLPOINT 

MORTGAGE SERVICING in substitution for the original

Plaintiff BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.,

Appellee.

No. 4D16-2536

[August 3, 2017]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Joel T. Lazarus, Judge; L.T. Case No. 15-008706 CACE 

11.

Catherine A. Riggins, Miami, for appellant.

Erin M. Berger of Kelley Kronenberg, Tampa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

LEVINE, CONNER, JJ., and SMALL, LISA, Associate Judge, concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 71 (Friday, April 13, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 18752]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-6971]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service


Open Meeting of the Area 5 Committee of the Taxpayer Advocacy 
Panel (Including the States of Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, 
Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas)

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: An open meeting of the Area 5 Committee of the Taxpayer 
Advocacy Panel will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is 
soliciting public comment, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer 
service at the Internal Revenue Service.

DATES: The meeting will be held Sunday, May 6, 2007, 3 p.m. to 6 p.m., 
and Monday, May 7, 2007, 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. Central Time.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Ann Delzer at 1-888-912-1227, or 
(414) 231-2360.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 
10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) 
that a meeting of the Area 5 Committee of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel 
will be held Sunday, May 6, 2007, 3 p.m. to 6 p.m., and Monday, May 7, 
2007, 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. Central Time, at the Westin Hotel, 1 East 
Pershing Road, Kansas City, MO 64108. You can submit written comments 
to the Panel by faxing the comments to (414) 231-2363, or by mail to 
Taxpayer Advocacy Panel, Stop 1006MIL, P.O. Box 3205, Milwaukee, WI 
53201-3205, or you can contact us at www.improveirs.org. Please contact 
Mary Ann Delzer at 1-888-912-1227 or (414) 231-2360 for more 
information.
    The agenda will include the following: Various IRS issues.

    Dated: April 6, 2007.
John Fay,
Acting Director Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.
[FR Doc. E7-6971 Filed 4-12-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
AO 450 (Rev. 5/85) Judgment in a Civil Case 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

 Eastern Division 

ROBERT A. SNEAD, 

Plaintiff,

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

v. 

CASE NO. 2:12-cv-739 

GARY C. MOHR, et al., CHIEF JUDGE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.

 MAGISTRATE JUDGE NORAH MCCANN KING

Defendants.

Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues have 

been tried and the jury has rendered its verdict. 

Decision by Court. A decision has been rendered by the Court without a hearing or 

trial. 

Pursuant to the OPINION AND ORDER filed March 16, 2015, JUDGMENT is 

hereby entered DISMISSING this case. 

Date: March 16, 2015 RICHARD W. NAGEL, CLERK 

/S/ Andy F. Quisumbing 

(By) Andy F. Quisumbing 

 Courtroom Deputy Clerk 

Case: 2:12-cv-00739-EAS-NMK Doc #: 148 Filed: 03/16/15 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: <pageID>
```

[110th Congress Public Law 198]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[DOCID: f:publ198.110]

[[Page 122 STAT. 656]]

Public Law 110-198
110th Congress

                                 An Act

 
  To temporarily extend the programs under the Higher Education Act of 
               1965. <<NOTE: Mar. 24, 2008 -  [S. 2733]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress <<NOTE: Higher Education Extension 
Act of 2008. 20 USC 1001 note.>> assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Higher Education Extension Act of 
2008''.
SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF PROGRAMS.

    Section 2(a) of the Higher Education Extension Act of 2005 (Public 
Law 109-81; 20 U.S.C. 1001 note) is amended by striking ``March 31, 
2008'' and inserting ``April 30, 2008''.
SEC. 3. <<NOTE: 20 USC 1001 note.>>  RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

    Nothing in this Act, or in the Higher Education Extension Act of 
2005 as amended by this Act, shall be construed to limit or otherwise 
alter the authorizations of appropriations for, or the durations of, 
programs contained in the amendments made by the Higher Education 
Reconciliation Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-171) or by the College Cost 
Reduction and Access Act (Public Law 110-84) to the provisions of the 
Higher Education Act of 1965 and the Taxpayer-Teacher Protection Act of 
2004.

    Approved March 24, 2008.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--S. 2733:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 154 (2008):
            Mar. 7, considered and passed Senate.
            Mar. 11, 12, considered and passed House.

                                  <all>
```