alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2015213EN.01001502.xml

| 29.6.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 213/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.6.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 213/15

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 30 March 2015 — Deutsche Parkinson Vereinigung e.V. v Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs e.V.

(Case C-148/15)

(2015/C 213/24)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Deutsche Parkinson Vereinigung e.V.

Applicant:

Defendant: Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs e.V.

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 34 TFEU be interpreted as meaning that a system of fixed prices laid down by national law applicable to prescription-only medicinal products constitutes a measure having equivalent effect within the meaning of Article 34 TFEU? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 34 TFEU be interpreted as meaning that a system of fixed prices laid down by national law applicable to prescription-only medicinal products constitutes a measure having equivalent effect within the meaning of Article 34 TFEU?

| 2. | If the Court answers Question 1 in the affirmative:
  Is the system of fixed prices for prescription-only medicinal products justified under to Article 36 TFEU on grounds of the protection of health and life of humans if that system is the only means of ensuring a consistent supply of medicinal products to the population across the whole of Germany, in particular in rural areas? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the Court answers Question 1 in the affirmative:

Is the system of fixed prices for prescription-only medicinal products justified under to Article 36 TFEU on grounds of the protection of health and life of humans if that system is the only means of ensuring a consistent supply of medicinal products to the population across the whole of Germany, in particular in rural areas?

| 3. | If the Court also answers Question 2 in the affirmative:
  What is the degree of judicial scrutiny required when determining whether the condition mentioned in Question 2 is in fact satisfied? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the Court also answers Question 2 in the affirmative:

What is the degree of judicial scrutiny required when determining whether the condition mentioned in Question 2 is in fact satisfied?

---
This page is no longer being maintained. You can find a previous version at: https://www.nlm.nih.gov/exhibition/dream-anatomy/index.html.
        - There is no guarentee that this redirect page will be maintained.
        - You will be redirected in 10 seconds.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 79 (Wednesday, April 25, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20517-20518]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-7797]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. TX06-2-006]


Aero Energy, LLC; Notice of Filing

April 18, 2007.
    Take notice that on April 16, 2007, Sagebrush Partnership filed 
executed copies of its Interconnection Agreement and the Transmission 
Service Agreement between itself and Aero Energy, LLC, pursuant to 
ordering paragraph B of the Commission's March 15, 2007 order.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. 
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of 
that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.

[[Page 20518]]

    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#65232037262a0b090c0b00361015150a171125030017064b020a13"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="60262532232f0e0c090e05331510100f121420060512034e070f16">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on May 16, 2007.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-7797 Filed 4-24-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
### lt r e%o lwlw

l @mrlty wer nmlgable rrtwaw, 

### falledtoobtalrimwh~ the atate. The oourt he d tha6 l t e t e pollee 

### T onl aad Itr 8ot1on



### ~~euo ui, &$plloable to ageaoler md omploymer of the 4 om r a mm t

w b e a l u o h a ge n de r

a ud em p l o yee s

a r e e a r * 

### l q o p ih muo tl a m r

l xelualre4 rithia~the paver 

### of the United steer. 

### __... ’

.. 2he law prlaolple he0 oowiatea~~beei enutolatd 

## .~dourt **ia other** 

bwear In ohto f*.Thoaw, 17-3 0.8. 276 

### the State of @alo objeoted kaaue oloomargutlne wm sed:t0 ’&tee oLr*fede~alrol4iuB ’hoael~t84fnOhio ooqtrup to a rtite 

## rot regmlat the 30

..h reJeotlq tblm objection, th@ 060 of 0leawrprAne. urt rudr

.~ ..:: , ‘

. . . ;- ‘:.

al Jaharoa t* St&e Of narplmi, 254 ua. 81 &w) ~skk~~rtea~ooa*i6ted~e~~e ortho Po&OS- ~floe38partmeat ior trwuwW.ag mll over roada In Harplaud rithoot hw* flrrt been emm in ed 8n do bt a hed

l drlver~i il k ee n w f r o8

t he 

### Stats. 

### tioe X0&18 roidt.. IareYf~fn;g thb 

### OoPtlOtiOn, I&. Jim-’



### . _, "It l

### eemoto um

that the rrwrmity of the of the United Water foam 8tato ooariormtkaoeof their dutier extenda**s: .~..**  **sua8tanoo8~ the**  **polioe power**  **oi the**  

### State **ha8 90.**  l p p lio a tio n.

. . . I n& m a e r tin g

t h a t t h i r o ff%- o e r a m l e a r u s h o i r e wta t o n o e r

ëi a xem p t f r o a t he **rtate l&v,**  

### the UnitedStator am not UuCeW olaialag jw~adiotionwer thlaY tieular plwe of unst,in o#paition to tha angwge o? the aot &‘ **Oongre88 o&bag**  **baok tha**  

### jurirdiatlon **the TIntted**  **:** 

### state, reoeiWed



### fremthe 

### stat& The overzllllbnt $8 ,:; bat &d.dng tht **at8 mm**  **oH$o8r8,. de**  **P dlSeh6r~-** 

ln g **dutler** 

### under

Peder8l l



### &harit~p u r r u a nt

t o .- a n d **br** vlrtw **oi valid**  **# ‘**  **e&ml kv8,**  **me** 

## not wubjeot to 

### wrest or other ZlrrOillty tin&~ the Sam & the 

### State In rbioh kheirdu%iosurn pesfm.”
EXHIBIT 31.1

I, H. Dean Jones II, certify that:

1)

I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Texas Gas Transmission, LLC;

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 consolidated 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 its 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 its 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; and

c)

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 its most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the 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; and

b)

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.





Dated:  May 5, 2005

/s/ H. Dean Jones II





H. Dean Jones II, President
No. 54247.

#### Pioneer Merchandise Co. *v.*United States,

protest 142412-K (Bridgeport).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

When the case was called for trial, two witnesses appeared on behalf of the plaintiff. From the testimony presented the court found that chief use of the articles in controversy other than as household utensils was not established. *(I. W. Rice & Co.*v. *United States,*24 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 114, T. D. 48415) followed. From a consideration of all the facts presented and from a visual examination of the exhibits before the court, it was held that the evidence introduced by the plaintiff was not sufficient to overcome the presumption of correctness which attached to the collector’s classification *(United States*v. *I. Magnin & Co., Inc.,*21 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 77, T. D. 46394, and *United States*v. *Marshall Field & Co.,*17 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 1, T. D. 43309) cited. See *M. Pressner & Co.*v. *United States,*Abstract 54246, decided concurrently herewith, wherein the claim of the importer therein that merchandise similar in character to the pencil sharpeners here in controversy was dutiable as household utensils under paragraph 339 was sustained. Note also *M. Pressner & Co.*v. *United States,*Abstract 41633. In the circumstances of the present case, it was held that plaintiff failed to sustain its burden of proof. The first claim in the protest was therefore overruled. The alternative claim in the protest, having been virtually abandoned, was also overruled.
1 District Judge of the Eastern District of Louisiana sitting

by designation.

* * Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-30938

CALVIN GEYEN, JR., Plaintiff-Appellant,
VERSUS KENNETH S. APFEL; COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana

(97-CV-1284)

November 8, 1999
Before DAVIS and JONES, Circuit Judges , and LEMELLE 1 , District Judge.
PER CURIAM: **
After reviewing the record, along with the briefs of the parties, we are satisfied that the Commissioner’s findings are supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v WILLIAM J. MORRIS, Specialist Third Class, U. S. Army, Appellant

9 USCMA 347, 26 CMR 127

No. 11,291

Decided June 6, 1958

*Major Edward Fenig*and *First Lieutenant Hazen V. Hatch*were on the brief for Appellant, Accused.

*Lieutenant Colonel John G. Lee*and *First Lieutenant Avram G. Hammer*were on the brief for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

.Per Curiam:

The accused pleaded guilty and was convicted of seven specifications of indecent liberties with children under the age of sixteen, in violation of Article 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 934. He was sentenced to dishonorable discharge, total forfeitures, and confinement at hard labor for fifteen years. Pursuant to an agreement with the convening authority, the confinement portion of his sentence was reduced to five years. The board of review affirmed, and we limited our grant of review to the question of whether it was error for the convening authority to be apprised of a prior juvenile conviction.

In United States v Barrow, 9 USCMA 343, 26 CMR 123, decided this day, this Court held that a reviewing authority may consider juvenile misdeeds and convictions in order to guide him in his action on the sentence. For the reasons expressed therein, the decision of the board of review is affirmed.
**
Certification of the Principal Executive Officer
Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)
(Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)  
I, Glenn F. Tilton, the Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officerof United Air Lines, Inc. (the "Company"), certify that:(1)     I have reviewed this quarterly reporton Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2004 of the Company; (2)     Based on my knowledge, this report does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report; (3)     Based on my knowledge, the financial statements,and other financial information included in this report, fairly presentin all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented inthis report; (4)     The Company's other certifying officer andI are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controlsand procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e))for the Company and we have: (a)   Designed such disclosure controls and procedures,or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed underour supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the Company,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in which this reportis being prepared; (b)     Evaluated the effectiveness of the Company'sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as ofthe end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;and (c)     Disclosed in this report any change in theCompany's internal control over financial reporting that occurred duringthe Company's most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected,or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company's internal controlover financial reporting; and (5)     The Company's other certifying officer andI have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controlover financial reporting, to the Company's auditors and the audit committeeof Company's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): (a)     All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Company'sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and (b)     Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the Company'sinternal control over financial reporting.   /s/ Glenn F. TiltonGlenn F. TiltonUnited Air Lines, Inc.Chairman, President and Chief Executive OfficerJuly 28, 2004  

**
*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of

law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the

citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under

the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

JAN 30 1998

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

JAMES BARNES,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 97-5080

(D.C. No. 96-CV-198-C)

(N.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before SEYMOUR, Chief Judge, BRORBY, and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. Therefore, the case is

ordered submitted without oral argument.

Defendant James Barnes appeals the order of the district court denying his

motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. He
1

 Because Barnes filed his § 2255 motion on March 13, 1996, before the effective

date of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, he is not required to

obtain a certificate of appealability. See United States v. Kunzman, 125 F.3d 1363, 1364

n.2 (10th Cir. 1997).

-2-

contends he received ineffective assistance of counsel in his trial for conspiracy

to manufacture, possess, and distribute methamphetamine. We affirm.1

On appeal, Barnes contends counsel was ineffective because “counsel did

not plan a defense, plan an attack, did not do any discovery, failed totally with

hearsay evidence, did not make objections when necessary, and thereby totally

failed to give James Barnes proper defense in a court of law.”

Barnes did not raise the issue of ineffective assistance of trial counsel in

his § 2255 proceedings before the district court. He contended he received

ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing. He argued before the district

court that both trial and appellate counsel were ineffective in failing to object to

the sentencing’s court’s application of the offense level for D-methamphetamine

rather than L-methamphetamine. In the absence of extraordinary circumstances,

this court will not review issues raised for the first time on appeal. Smith v.

Secretary of New Mexico Dept. of Corrections, 50 F.3d 801, 814 n.22 (10th Cir.

1995). There are no extraordinary circumstances here to justify departure from

the general rule. Moreover, the record does not include the trial transcript and

other portions of the trial record. We cannot address issues when the record is
-3-

insufficient for meaningful review. See Strand v. United States, 780 F.2d 1497,

1500 (10th Cir. 1985).

Barnes is granted a certificate of probable cause. The district court’s denial

of Barnes’ § 2255 motion is AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith.

Entered for the Court

Mary Beck Briscoe

Circuit Judge
Aris Industries, Inc. Certification under Section 906 of the Sarbanes/Oxley Act-
Filed as an Exhibit to 10-Q for the Quarter Ended June 30, 2003


                                                                    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


Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and
(b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each of the
undersigned officers of Aris Industries, Inc. (the "Company"), does hereby
certify, to such officer's knowledge, That:


(1)      The Company's Quarterly Report of Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June
         30, 2003 ("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 result of operations of
         the Company.




By /s/ Arnold H. Simon
-----------------------
Arnold H. Simon
Chief Executive Officer
Augsut 13, 2003



By /s/ Paul Spector
-----------------------
Paul Spector
Chief Financial Officer
August 13, 2003
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 6, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-50334

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ELY FLORES, also known as Pollo, also known

as Ely Flores-Melgar,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. A-02-CR-285

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

Before JONES, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ely Flores pleaded guilty to a two-count indictment that

charged him with conspiring to distribute and knowingly possessing

more than five grams of cocaine base (crack cocaine) in violation

of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C), 846. Flores appeals the

sentence he received after the district court applied U.S.S.G.

§ 2D1.1 to convert cash seized from a safe at Flores’s residence to
2

a drug equivalent for purposes of determining Flores’s base offense

level.

Section 2D1.1 provides for the conversion of cash to a

drug equivalent when drugs are not seized or when the amount seized

does not reflect the scale of the offense. § 2D1.1, comment

(n.12). Given that 41.04 grams of cocaine base, which has a street

value of $500 an ounce, does not reflect the amount of cocaine base

Flores would have to sell to earn $16,920, the amount of drugs

seized did not accurately reflect the scale of Flores’s offense.

Thus, the district court did not err when it applied Note 12 to

§ 2D1.1 to convert the cash to a drug equivalent in determining

Flores’s sentence. See United States v. Henderson, 254 F.3d 543,

544 (5th Cir. 2001); United States v. McCaskey, 9 F.3d 368, 375

(5th Cir. 1993).

AFFIRMED.