alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2016191EN.01003002.xml

| 30.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/30

---

Order of the General Court of 14 March 2016 — Sopra Steria Group v Parliament

(Case T-181/15) (1)

1

((Public service contracts - Decision of the Parliament to launch a negotiated procedure without publication of a contract notice for the provision of IT services - Withdrawal of the act - No need to adjudicate))

(2016/C 191/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Sopra Steria Group SA (Annecy-le-Vieux, France) (represented by: A. Verlinden, R. Martens and J. Joossen, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: L. Tapper Brandberg and B. Simon, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of the Parliament’s decision to use the negotiated procedure PE/ITEC-NPE-15.8 without prior publication of a contract notice for the provision of IT services to the Parliament and to other institutions and agencies of the European Union.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no further need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no further need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | The European Parliament is to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The European Parliament is to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 262, 10.8.2015.

1

---
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 16, 2016

No. 04-16-00390-CV

Juan ROBLES,

Appellant

v.

Maria Milagros ROBLES,

Appellee

From the 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas

Trial Court No. 10-2084-CV

Honorable W.C. Kirkendall, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Phyllis Bush's notification of late reporter's record is hereby GRANTED. The reporter's 

record is due on or before October 17, 2016.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

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

court on this 16th day of September, 2016.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
# C_2016410EN.01003302.xml

| 7.11.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 410/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.11.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 410/33

---

Order of the General Court of 19 September 2016 — Indecopi v EUIPO — Synergy Group (PISCO SOUR)

(Case T-447/15) (1)

1

(2016/C 410/48)

Language of the case: Spanish

The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 320, 28.9.2015.

1

---
Before the Third Division,

September 1, 1943

No. 48704.

#### Protest 44127-K of Sun Wing Wo Co. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

At the trial the examiner testified in behalf of the plaintiff and identified two samples which were received in evidence. The chief chemist at San Francisco was later called on behalf of the plaintiff and testified that the broken rice was 2%o percent of the samples, which conclusion he arrived at through the method used by the Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Seed and Grain Investigation, and also by all laboratories in the customs service, and with an instrument called the Boerner sampler. On the record presented it was found that the broken rice was 2%> percent of the shipment here involved and it *249was therefore held that such percentage of rice is dutiable at of 1 cent per pound under paragraph 727 and T. D. 48075 as claimed. *United States*v. *Brandenstein*(17 C. C. P. A. 480, T. D. 43941) and *United States*v. *Great Pacific Co.*(23 id. 319, T. D. 48192) cited.
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v ALBERT HUGHES, Jr., Private First Class, U. S. Army, Appellant

19 USCMA 510, 42 CMR 112

No. 22,956

June 26, 1970

*Colonel Daniel T. Ghent, Captain Monte Engler,*and *Captain Brian B. McMenamin*were on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Colonel David T. Bryant, Major Edwin P. Wasinger, Captain James S. Mathews,*and *Captain William R. Steinmetz*were on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

PER Curiam:

The circumstances of this case are like those in United States v Pieragowski, 19 USCMA 508, 42 CMR 110, decided this date. For the reasons stated in our opinion in *Pier a,goto ski,*the decision of the United States Army Court of Military Review as to specification 2 of the charge is reversed. The findings of guilty of specification 2 are set aside and the specification is ordered dismissed. The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Army for submission to the Court of Military Review for reassessment of the sentence on the basis of the remaining findings of guilty.
# C_2015429EN.01000901.xml

| 21.12.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 429/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 429/9

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van Koophandel Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 5 October 2015 — Uber Belgium BVBA v Taxi Radio Bruxellois NV, Other parties: Uber NV and Others

(Case C-526/15)

(2015/C 429/13)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Rechtbank van Koophandel Brussel

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Uber Belgium BVBA

Applicant:

Defendant: Taxi Radio Bruxellois NV

Defendant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Uber NV and Others, Brusselse Hoofdstedelijk Gewest, Belgische Federatie van Taxis, Nationale Groepering van Ondernemingen met Taxi- and Locatievoertuigen met Chauffeur VZW

Other parties to the proceedings:

Question referred

Question referred

Should the principle of proportionality, laid down in Article 5 TEU and Article 52(1) of the Charter, (1) read in conjunction with Articles 15, 16 and 17 of the Charter and with Articles 28 TFEU and 56 TFEU, be interpreted as precluding a rule such as that laid down in the Ordonnantie van het Brusselse Hoofstedelijk Gewest van 27 april 1995 betreffende de taxidiensten voor het verhuren van voertuigen met vervoerder (Ordinance of the Brussels-Capital Region of 27 April 1995 relating to taxis and services for the rental of vehicles with carrier), be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘taxi services’ (‘taxidiensten’) also applies to unpaid individual carriers who are involved in ride sharing (shared transport) by accepting ride requests which they are offered by means of a software application of the companies Uber BV et al established in another Member State?

1

---

(1)  OJ 2000 C 364, p. 1.

1

---
<PAGE>   1
                       UGI UTILITIES INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
        COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES - EXHIBIT 12.1
                             (THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                     Six
                                                   Months
                                                    Ended
                                                  March 31,                          Year Ended September 30,
                                                                   -------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    2000              1999            1998           1997             1996
                                                --------------     -----------     -----------    -----------     --------------
<S>                                             <C>                <C>              <C>           <C>             <C>
EARNINGS:
Earnings before income taxes                         $ 73,389        $ 63,139        $ 57,007       $ 63,275           $ 61,717
Interest expense                                        9,302          17,317          17,383         16,696             15,921
Amortization of debt discount and expense                 105             215             200            176                173
Interest component of rental expense                      659           1,539           1,624          1,887              1,838
                                                --------------     -----------     -----------    -----------     --------------
                                                     $ 83,455        $ 82,210        $ 76,214       $ 82,034           $ 79,649
                                                ==============     ===========     ===========    ===========     ==============

FIXED CHARGES:
Interest expense                                      $ 9,302        $ 17,317        $ 17,383       $ 16,696           $ 15,921
Amortization of debt discount and expense                 105             215             200            176                173
Allowance for funds used during
      construction (capitalized interest)                  38              36              39            114                107
Interest component of rental expense                      659           1,539           1,624          1,887              1,838
                                                --------------     -----------     -----------    -----------     --------------
                                                     $ 10,104        $ 19,107        $ 19,246       $ 18,873           $ 18,039
                                                ==============     ===========     ===========    ===========     ==============

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                       8.26            4.30            3.96           4.35               4.42
                                                ==============     ===========     ===========    ===========     ==============
</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.

SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO WACHOVIA BANK, N.A.,

Respondent

v.

VERNON R. WILLIAMS, SETTLOR, OWNER, EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE

AND JUDITH WILLIAMS REAL PARTIES OF INTEREST,

Petitioners :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 363 EAL 2016

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 29th day of November, 2016

, the Petition for Allowance of

Appeal is DENIED

.
# C_2016454EN.01002501.xml

| 5.12.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 454/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 454/25

---

Order of the General Court of 12 October 2016 — Lysoform Dr. Hans Rosemann and Others v ECHA

(Case T-543/15) (1)

((Actions for annulment - Inclusion as supplier of an active substance on the list provided for in Article 95 of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 - Lack of direct concern - Inadmissibility))

(2016/C 454/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Lysoform Dr. Hans Rosemann GmbH (Berlin, Germany), Ecolab Deutschland GmbH (Monheim, Germany), Schülke & Mayr GmbH (Norderstedt, Germany) and Diversey Europe Operations BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: K. Van Maldegem, M. Grunchard and P. Sellar, lawyers)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (represented by: C. Buchanan, W. Broere and M. Heikkilä, acting as Agents, and by P. Oliver, Barrister)

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the decision of ECHA of 17 June 2015 concerning the inclusion of the company Oxea GmbH, established in Germany, as supplier of an active substance on the list referred to in Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 concerning the making available on the market and use of biocidal products (OJ 2012 L 167, p. 1).

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the applications to intervene of Oxea GmbH and BASF SE. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the applications to intervene of Oxea GmbH and BASF SE.

| 3. | Lysoform Dr. Hans Rosemann GmbH, Ecolab Deutschland GmbH, Schülke & Mayr GmbH and Diversey Europe Operations BV shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) except for those relating to the applications for leave to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Lysoform Dr. Hans Rosemann GmbH, Ecolab Deutschland GmbH, Schülke & Mayr GmbH and Diversey Europe Operations BV shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) except for those relating to the applications for leave to intervene.

| 4. | Lysoform Dr. Hans Rosemann, Ecolab Deutschland, Schülke & Mayr, Diversey Europe Operations, ECHA, Oxea and BASF shall each bear its own costs relating to the applications for leave to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Lysoform Dr. Hans Rosemann, Ecolab Deutschland, Schülke & Mayr, Diversey Europe Operations, ECHA, Oxea and BASF shall each bear its own costs relating to the applications for leave to intervene.

---

(1)  OJ C 406, 7.12.2015.

---
EXHIBIT 10.2


 


AMENDMENT TO PROMISSORY NOTE


 


This amendment to promissory
note (this “Amendment”), dated as of April 8, 2022, is made and by and between Virgin Group Acquisition Corp. II, a
Cayman Islands exempted company and blank check company (the “Maker”) and Virgin Group Acquisition Sponsor II LLC,
or its registered assigns or successors in interest (the “Payee”).


 


WHEREAS, the Maker executed
and delivered a promissory note dated as of September 28, 2021 for the benefit of Payee in the original principal amount of $1,000,000
(the “Note”); and


 


WHEREAS, the Maker and the
Payee now desire to amend the Note as set forth herein.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration
of the premises and the agreements, provisions and covenants herein contained, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged,
the parties hereto hereby agree as follows:


 


		1.	Each capitalized term used herein that is not defined herein shall have the meaning assigned to such term
in the Note.



 


		2.	From and after the date hereof, the Principal Amount of the Note shall be one million five hundred
thousand U.S. dollars ($1,500,000). All references to the Principal Amount in the Note shall be deemed to refer to the Principal Amount
as amended by this Amendment.



 


		3.	Except as specifically modified and amended herein, all other terms, conditions and covenants contained
in the Note shall remain in full force and effect.



 


		4.	This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts with the same effect as if all parties hereto
had signed the same document. All such counterparts shall be construed together and shall constitute one instrument, but in making proof
hereof it shall only be necessary to produce one such counterpart.



 


		5.	This Amendment shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties and their respective successors
and assigns.



 


		6.	This Amendment shall be governed by New York law, without regard to conflicts of law principles.



 




    	 



    	 



    

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have caused
this Amendment to be executed by their officers thereunto duly authorized, all as of the day and year first above written.


 


	 	VIRGIN GROUP ACQUISITION CORP. II	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/ Evan Lovell	 
	 	Name:Evan Lovell	 
	 	Title:Director	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	 


	 	VIRGIN GROUP ACQUISITION 

SPONSOR II LLC	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/ Kerry Graziola	 
	 	Name:Kerry Graziola	 
	 	Title:Alternate Director
---

EXHIBIT 32.2

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

The undersigned, REGINALD SCHAUDER, the Vice President-Finance,
Secretary and Treasurer of CANAL CAPITAL CORPORATION (the Company), DOES
HEREBY CERTIFY that:

| | 1. | The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
      quarter ended January 31, 2010 (the Report), fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
      and
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                       
| | 2. | Information contained in the report fairly presents, in
      all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of
      the Company.                                                           

IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the undersigned has executed this
statement this 30th day of October 2012.

| | /S/ Reginald
      Schauder
| | ---------------------------
| | Reginald Schauder          
| | Vice President-Finance,    
| | Secretary and Treasurer    
| | (Principal Financial and   
| | Accounting Officer)        

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906 has been provided to Canal Capital Corporation and will be retained by Canal
Capital Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.

The foregoing certification is being furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not
being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the
Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general
incorporation language in such filing.

---
lps95278
III 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 89 

Congratulating the Montana FFA on its 75th Anniversary and celebrating 

the achievements of Montana FFA members. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 17, 2005 

Mr. BURNS (for himself and Mr. BAUCUS) submitted the following resolution; 

which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Congratulating the Montana FFA on its 75th Anniversary 

and celebrating the achievements of Montana FFA members. 

Whereas in 2005, the Montana FFA, chartered in 1930, celebrates its 75th anniversary as a premier student development organization where members gain life and leadership skills; 

Whereas more than 40,000 Montanans have been FFA members; 

Whereas Montana FFA alumni provide outstanding leadership to agriculture and agribusiness at the local, State, 

and Federal levels; 

Whereas the Montana FFA Association is the largest career 

and technical student organization in the State, with over 

2,550 members from 75 chapters; 
2 

•SRES 89 ATS

Whereas the mission of the FFA is to make a positive difference in the lives of students by developing their potential for premier leadership, personal growth, and career 

success through agriculture education; 

Whereas FFA is an integral component of agriculture education in the public school system; and 

Whereas the National FFA Organization is a federally-chartered organization: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) congratulates the Montana FFA on its 75th 

3 anniversary; and 

4 (2) directs the Secretary of the Senate to trans5 mit to the Montana FFA an enrolled copy of this 

6 resolution for appropriate display. 

Æ
No. 64341.

protests 59/12340, etc. (Buffalo).

#### C. J. Tower & Sons of Buffalo, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of prepared or preserved pork similar in all material respects to that the subject of *C. J. Tower & Sons*v. *United States*(43 Cust. Ct. 36, C.D. 2100), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 54867.

#### Indo American Trading Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 157928-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400

the court dismissed the protests.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 21

- 00015

- CV

Eric PASANISI and Tanganyika Wildlife Safari, Ltd., Appellants

v.

Mark VANHAM and Klineburger Vanham International Hunting Consultants, LLC

, Appellees

From the 166th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013

- CI

- 08521

Honorable Laura Salinas , Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE CHAPA

, JUSTICE WATKINS , AND JUSTI CE RODRIGUEZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s February 7, 2019 default judgment is REVERSED , and the case is REMANDED to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this judgment.

Costs of court for this appeal are taxed against a ppellee s Mark Vanham and Klineburger Vanham International Hunting Consultants, LLC.

SIGNED March 16, 2022.

_____________________________ Beth Watkins, Justice
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 228 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 228

    Expressing the sense of Congress with respect to countries that 
 withdraw from the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 4, 2007

    Mr. Schiff (for himself and Mr. Shays) submitted the following 
 concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign 
                                Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
    Expressing the sense of Congress with respect to countries that 
 withdraw from the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That it is the sense of Congress that the President should direct the 
United States Permanent Representative to the United Nations to use the 
vote, voice, and influence of the United States to urge the United 
Nations Security Council to pass a resolution under Chapter VII of the 
United Nations Charter that--
            (1) requires any country that withdraws from the Treaty on 
        the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, done at Washington, 
        London and Moscow on July 1, 1968, and entered into force on 
        March 5, 1970 (21 UST 483) (hereinafter in this resolution 
        referred to as the ``Treaty''), to be held responsible for any 
        violations by the country of the Treaty's requirements that 
        occurred before the country's withdrawal from the Treaty; and
            (2) prohibits any country that withdraws from the Treaty 
        after the country is determined to be in noncompliance with any 
        of the Treaty's requirements, including any applicable 
        safeguards agreements, from using or retaining any nuclear 
        energy assets, including all items listed in the current 
        version of the International Atomic Energy Agency trigger list, 
        published in INFCIRC/254 parts 1 and 2, acquired from other 
        parties to the Treaty while the country was a party to the 
        Treaty.
                                 <all>
```