alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2016090EN.01002701.xml

| 7.3.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 90/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 90/27

---

Order of the President of the Civil Service Tribunal of 20 January 2016 — Brouillard v Commission

(Case F-148/15 R)

((Civil Service - Non-admission to the tests in a competition - Interim proceedings - Application for interim measures - Lack of urgency))

(2016/C 090/36)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Alain Laurent Brouillard (Forest, Belgium) (represented by: P. Vande Casteele, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision of the selection board in Competition EPSO/AD/306/15 — French-language lawyer-linguists (AD 7) not to admit the applicant to the next stage of the competition on the ground that he did not have a level of education corresponding to a completed course of legal training from a Belgian, French or Luxemburgish institution of higher education.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | Mr Brouillard’s application for interim measures is rejected. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Mr Brouillard’s application for interim measures is rejected.

| 2. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The costs are reserved.

---
250 WEST 57TH ST. ASSOCIATES L.L.C.

FILE NO. 0-2666

POWER OF ATTORNEY

 

 

 

We, the undersigned members of 250 West 57th St. Associates L.L.C. ("Associates"), hereby severally constitute and appoint Mark Labell our true and lawful attorney with full power to sign for us, and in our names and in the capacities indicated below on behalf of Associates, any and all reports or other statements required to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission under Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Signature						Title			Date
 

 

/s/ Peter L. Malkin					Member	     October 14, 2003

          Peter L. Malkin					

 

/s/ Anthony E. Malkin					Member	     October 14, 2003

          Anthony E. Malkin				

STATE OF NEW YORK	)

					) s.s.:

COUNTY OF NEW YORK	)

 

On the 	14 day of October in the year 2003 before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and said State, personally appeared Peter L. Malkin, personally known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the individual whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same in his capacity, and that by his signature on the instrument, the individual, or the person upon behalf of which the individual acted, executed the instrument.

 

/s/ Notary Public				

	Notary Public

STATE OF NEW YORK	)

					) s.s.:

COUNTY OF NEW YORK	)

 

On the 	14 day of October in the year 2003 before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and said State, personally appeared Anthony E. Malkin, personally known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the individual whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same in his capacity, and that by his signature on the instrument, the individual, or the person upon behalf of which the individual acted, executed the instrument.

 

/s/ Notary Public				

	Notary Public
Case No. 15,234.

#### UNITED STATES v. GORDON.

[1 Cranch, C. C. 81.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

April Term, 1802.

SeLLINO blQUOK WITHOUT LICENSE.

Under the act of Virginia prohibiting the sale of spirituous liqucs without license, all the acts of selling before conviction constitute but one offence.

1

 [Reported by Hon. William Cranch, Chief Judge.]

Indictment [against Robert Gordon] for retailing spirituous liquors. [For prior proceedings, see Case No. 15,233.] The judgment was arrested; because the indictment charged it as a second offence, before the defendant was convicted of a first; the court being of opinion that all selling before conviction constituted but one offence.
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**
 
 
 CERTIFICATION
      UNDER SECTION 906
 OF
      THE
 SARBANES-OXLEY
      ACT OF 2002
 
 
 In
      connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Unico American Corporation
      (the "Company") for the period ended September 30, 2007, as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Erwin Cheldin, Chief
      Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, 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 my knowledge:
 
 1.
            the
                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
                of
                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
                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/  Erwin
      Cheldin
 Name:                              Erwin
      Cheldin
 Title:                                Chairman
      of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer
 Date:                                November
      12, 2007
 
 
 
 
 A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
      authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
      in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
      by Section 906, has been provided to Unico American Corporation, and will
      be
      retained by Unico American Corporation, and furnished to the Securities and
      Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
t• RHODE I SLAND 

__ ~4 __ D_EP_A_R_T_M_E_N_T_O_F_E_N......,V_IR_O_N_M_EN_T_A_L _M_A_N_A_G_E_M_E_N_T_ 

a 235 Promenade Street, Providence, RI 02908-5767 

28 March 2016 

David Conroy 

U.S. EPA - Region 1 

5 Post Office Square, 

Suite 100 (OEP05-02) 

Boston, MA 02109-3912 

Re: Withdrawal of Air Quality State Implementation Plans 

Dear Mr. Conroy: 

TDD 401-831-5508 

I hereby withdraw the following Air Pollution Control Regulations that were included in an Air 

Quality State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Rhode Island Department of 

Environmental Management (DEM) to EPA on September 22, 2008. 

Rhode Island Air Pollution Control General Definitions Regulation [Last Amended 9 

October 2008] 

Air Pollution Control Regulation No 9 "Air Pollution Control Permits" [Last Amended 9 

October 2008] 

A later version of the General Definitions Regulation was approved by EPA on March 13, 2012 

and the 9 October 2008 version of APC Regulation No. 9 is not the most current version of this 

regulation. Therefore, rather than devote resources to action on the above SIP revisions, DEM is 

withdrawing them so that EPA and DEM can focus attention on priority SIP revisions. 

If you have any questions on this issue, please contact me at ( 401) 222-2808, x-7011. 

Sincerely, 

'·, . ; _,-, . I /}- I I 

0 (J(Jl'(lxJ (; . 7ffor / I 

J I 

Douglas L. McVay, Ch\#' 

Office of Air Resources 

cc: Anne Arnold - EPA 

Ida McDonnell - EPA 

~ t:..: 30% post-consumer fibe r
# C_2017277EN.01001001.xml

| 21.8.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 277/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.8.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 277/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 June 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Oberösterreich — Austria) — Online Games Handels GmbH and Others v Landespolizeidirektion Oberösterreich

(Case C-685/15) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 49 TFEU - Freedom of establishment - Article 56 TFEU - Freedom to provide services - Games of chance - Restrictive legislation of a Member State - Penal administrative sanctions - Overriding reasons in the public interest - Proportionality - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 47 - Right to effective judicial protection - National legislation laying down the requirement for the court to examine of its own motion the facts of the case before it in the context of the prosecution of administrative offences - Compliance))

(2017/C 277/12)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Landesverwaltungsgericht Oberösterreich

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Online Games Handels GmbH, Frank Breuer, Nicole Enter, Astrid Walden

Applicants:

Defendant: Landespolizeidirektion Oberösterreich

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 49 and 56 TFEU, as interpreted in particular in the judgment of 30 April 2014, Pfleger and Others (C-390/12, EU:C:2014:281), read in light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as not precluding a national procedural system according to which, in administrative offence proceedings, the court called upon to rule on the compliance with EU law of legislation restricting the exercise of a fundamental freedom of the European Union, such as the freedom of establishment or the freedom to provide services within the European Union, is required to examine of its own motion the facts of the case before it in the context of examining whether administrative offences arise, provided that such a system does not have the consequence that that court is required to substitute itself for the competent authorities of the Member State concerned, whose task it is to provide the evidence necessary to enable that court to determine whether that restriction is justified.

---

(1)  OJ C 118, 4.4.2016.

1

---
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

DUANE P. GIBSON,

Plaintiff,

 Civil Action 2:12-cv-120

v. Judge James L. Graham

 Magistrate Judge E.A. Preston Deavers

CHIEF JUSTICE 

MAUREEN O’CONNOR, et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER

Plaintiff Duane P. Gibson, who is proceeding without the assistance of counsel, brings this

civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against more than fifteen Defendants. This matter is

before the Court for consideration of the March 22, 2012, Report and Recommendation of the

United States Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 8) and Plaintiff’s Objections to the Report and

Recommendation (ECF No. 10). 

Plaintiff filed a timely objection to the Report and Recommendation under Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 72(b). If a party objects within the allotted time to a report and recommendation,

the Court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified

proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see

also Fed R. Civ. P. 72(b). Upon review, the Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in

part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation and Plaintiff’s Objections in

accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rule 72(b). Because the decision and analysis of the

Case: 2:12-cv-00120-JLG-EPD Doc #: 11 Filed: 04/13/12 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
Magistrate Judge is correct, the Court ADOPTS the March 22, 2012, Report and

Recommendation (ECF No. 8), OVERRULES Plaintiff’s Objections (ECF No. 10), and

DISMISSES this action in its entirety under §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A for failure to state claim

upon which relief can be granted. Additionally, the Clerk is DIRECTED to send a copy of this

order to the Ohio Attorney General’s Office, 150 E. Gay St., 16th Floor, Columbus, Ohio 43215. 

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

S/ James L. Graham 

James L. Graham

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Date: April 13, 2012

2

Case: 2:12-cv-00120-JLG-EPD Doc #: 11 Filed: 04/13/12 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
Case No. 15,242.

#### UNITED STATES v. The GOVERNOR CUSHMAN.

[See Case No. 5,646.]
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

January 11, 2023

No. 04

- 22

- 00831

- CR

Miguel Angel COVARRUBIAS

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 399th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2022CR10931

Honorable Frank J. Castro , Judge Presiding

ORDER

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED FOR

WANT OF JURISDICTION.

It is so ORDERED on January 11, 2023

.

_____________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on th is 11th day of January, 2023

.

_____________________________ Michael A. Cruz , Clerk of Court
SCWC

- 16

- 0000845

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI ʻ I

DONNA LEE CHING, Petitioner/Plaintiff

- Appellant/Cross

- Appellee,

vs. NANCY LOO DUNG, Individually, and as Trustee under that certain unrecorded Nancy Loo Dung Revocable Living Trust dated September 8, 1993; The Estate of DENNIS QUAN KEONG DUNG, DECEASED AS Trustee under that certain unrecorded Irrevocable Trust for Dixon Quan Hon Dung, dated June 21, 1995, and as Trustee under that certain unrecorded Nancy Loo Dung Revocable Living Trust dated September 8, 1993; PATSY BOW YUK DUNG, In dividually, and as Trustee under that certain unrecorded Revocable Trust Agreement dated August 19, 2003; DIXON QUAN HON DUNG; BILLIE DUNG; ANNETTE KWAI FAH DUNG;

DENBY DUNG; DARAH DUNG; DEAN DUNG, Respondents/Defendants

- Appellees/Cross

- Appellants.

(CIVIL NO. 07

- 1

- 1116

- 06)

DONNA L. CHING, Individually, Petitioner/Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant

- Appellant/Cross Appellee,

vs. ANNETTE KWAI FAH DUNG, Personal Representative of the Estate of Dennis Quan Keong Dung; PATSY BOW YUK DUNG, Trustee of the Revocable Trust of Patsy Bow Yuk Dung, Individually; BILLIE DUNG, Individually; DARAH DUNG, Individually; DEAN DUNG, Individually; DENBY DUNG, Individually, Respondents/Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs

- Appellees/Cross

- Appellants.

(CIVIL NO. 13

- 1

- 2929

- 11) Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-16-0000845 07-JAN-2021 08:52 AM Dkt. 44 ODMR2 CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

(CAAP

- 16

- 0000845)

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS / APPELLEES/CROS S

- APPELLANTS ’ MOTION FOR REC ONSIDERATION OF THE OPINION FILED DECEMBER 21, 2020 (By: Nakayama, Acting C.J., Wilson, and Eddins, JJ., Circuit Judge Crabtree, in place of Recktenwald, C.J., recused, and Circuit Judge Tonaki, in place of McKenna, J., recused )

Upon consideration of Respondents/Defendants

Appellees/Cross

- Appellants ’ motion for reconsideration, filed on

December 30 , 2020, and the record and files herein,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that the motion is denied.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai ʻ i, January 7 , 202 1

. /s/ Paula A. Nakayama
/s/ Michael D. Wilson
/s/ Todd W

. Eddins
/s/ Jeffrey P. Crabtree
/s/ John M. Tonaki
No. 56171.

protest 165986-K (New York).

#### Haddad & Sons *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protest.
(Reap. Dec. 9373)

#### National Silver Co. *v.*United States

Entry No. 69747.

(Decided April 2, 1959)

Plaintiff not represented by counsel.

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

Lawrence, Judge:

There was no appearance on behalf of plaintiff when the above-enumerated appeal for a reappraisement was called for hearing and the case was ordered submitted by the court.

Eule 5 (a) of the rules of the court provides that—

> The submission for decision of any case shall be made in open court by the parties thereto or their attorneys, or by stipulation, or by written request to the court, or by the court on its own motion. Where the plaintiff, petitioner, or appellant, or his attorney, in a case does not appear when the same is called, and after the opposite party has had opportunity to present evidence on the issues, it may be deemed submitted and may be decided by the court on the record as it appears therein.

Accordingly, I have examined the record in the appeal before the court and find nothing therein which tends in any way to overcome the presumption of correctness which attaches to the decision of the appraiser. I find and hold, therefore, that the proper value of the merchandise is the value returned by the appraiser.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
September 8, 1969

No. 69-42

#### Laurence M. Svirchev, PVT, U. S. Army v BG James T. Hollingsworth as Commanding General of Fort Jackson, South Carolina and MG Willard Pearson as Commanding General of Fort Lewis, Washington.

On consideration of the Petition filed in the above-entitled action, it appearing that no court-martial proceedings are pending or threatened against petitioner and, since the extraordinary jurisdiction conferred by the All Writs Act, 28 USC 1651, may be invoked only in aid of the exercise of our jurisdiction over court-martial cases properly before us or which may come here eventually (United States v Snyder, 18 USCMA 480, 40 CMR 192), it is, by the Court, this 8th day of September, 1969,

ORDERED that said Petition be, and the same is, hereby dismissed.
|EXHIBIT 32.2
|------------

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 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 September 30, 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.

|Date: November 11, 2008 | By:/s/ Robert S. RubingerRobert S. Rubinger 
      Chief Financial Officer
|----------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to United-Guardian, Inc. and will be retained by United-Guardian, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission upon request.

---
# C_2018013EN.01001201.xml

| 15.1.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 13/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.1.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 13/12

---

Judgment of the General Court of 23 November 2017 — Aurora v CPVO — SESVanderhave (M 02205)

(Case T-140/15) (1)

1

((Plant varieties - Nullity proceedings - Sugar beet variety M 02205 - Article 20(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 - Article 7 of Regulation No 2100/94 - Distinctness of the candidate variety - Technical examination - Procedure before the Board of Appeal - Obligation to analyse carefully and impartially all the elements relevant to the present case - Power to alter))

(2018/C 013/20)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Aurora Srl (Finale Emilia, Italy) (represented: initially by L.-B. Buchman, lawyer, and subsequently by L.-B. Buchman, R. Crespi and M. Razou, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) (represented: initially by F. Mattina, subsequently by M. Mattina and M. Ekvad, and finally by M. Mattina, M. Ekvad and A. Weitz, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the CPVO, intervener before the Court: SESVanderhave NV (Tirlemont, Belgium) (represented: initially by K. Neefs and P. de Jong and subsequently by P. de Jong, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the CPVO, intervener before the Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Board of Appeal of the CPVO of 26 November 2014 (Case A 010/2013) concerning nullity proceedings between Aurora and SESVanderhave.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Board of Appeal of the Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) of 26 November 2014 (Case A 010/2013); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Board of Appeal of the Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) of 26 November 2014 (Case A 010/2013);

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders the CPVO to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Aurora Srl; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the CPVO to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Aurora Srl;

| 4. | Orders SESVanderhave NV to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders SESVanderhave NV to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 190, 8.6.2015.

1

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-1051

RICARDO ERNESTO MANOSALVA-PENA, 

 Petitioner, 

 v. 

MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, 

 Respondent. 

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals.

Submitted: November 19, 2008 Decided: December 4, 2008 

Before TRAXLER and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge. 

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Aroon Roy Padharia, Falls Church, Virginia, for Petitioner. 

Gregory G. Katsas, Assistant Attorney General, Daniel E. 

Goldman, Senior Litigation Counsel, Andrew B. Insenga, Office of 

Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 

Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

 Ricardo Ernesto Manosalva-Pena, a native and citizen 

of Peru, petitions for review of an order of the Board of 

Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing his appeal from the 

immigration judge’s decision, which found him removable as an 

alien convicted of a crime of domestic violence and as an 

aggravated felon and ordered him removed to Peru. 

 Before this court, Manosalva-Pena contends that the 

Board erred in finding that he was convicted of an aggravated 

felony. Based on our review of the record, we agree that his 

third conviction under Virginia law for domestic assault and 

battery against a family member amounted to a “crime of 

violence” and was therefore an aggravated felony. See 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1101(a)(43)(F) (2006); 18 U.S.C. § 16(a) (2006). The Board 

therefore properly upheld the charge of removability on this 

ground. See 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) (2006); In re: 

Manosalva-Pena (B.I.A. Aug. 22, 2007). Additionally, we reject 

Manosalva-Pena’s argument that he was improperly charged with 

removability as an aggravated felon under § 237(a)(2)(A)(iii) of 

the Immigration and Nationality Act. 

 Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. 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