alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2017249EN.01002302.xml

| 31.7.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 249/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.7.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 249/23

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 June 2017 — Kiselev v Council

(Case T-262/15) (1)

((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening Ukraine - Freezing of funds - Restrictions on entry into the territories of the Member States - Natural person actively supporting or implementing actions undermining or threatening Ukraine - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment - Freedom of expression - Proportionality - Rights of defence))

(2017/C 249/35)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Dmitrii Konstantinovich Kiselev (Korolev, Russia) (represented by: J. Linneker, Solicitor, T. Otty, Barrister, and B. Kennelly QC)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: V. Piessevaux and J.-P. Hix, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of (i) Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/432 of 13 March 2015 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2015 L 70, p. 47) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/427 of 13 March 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2015 L 70, p. 1), (ii) Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/1524 of 14 September 2015 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2015 L 239, p. 157) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1514 of 14 September 2015 implementing Regulation No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2015 L 239, p. 30), and (iii) Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/359 of 10 March 2016 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2016 L 67, p. 37) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/353 of 10 March 2016 implementing Regulation No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2016 L 67, p. 1), in so far as those measures apply to the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Dmitrii Konstantinovich Kiselev to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Dmitrii Konstantinovich Kiselev to pay the costs.

---

(1)  
  OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.

---
III 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 307 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 6, 2008 

Received and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of Congress that Members’ Congressional papers should be properly maintained and encouraging Members to take all necessary measures to manage 

and preserve these papers. 

Whereas Members’ Congressional papers (including papers of 

Delegates and Resident Commissioners to the Congress) 

serve as indispensable sources for the study of American 

representative democracy; 

Whereas these papers document vital national, regional, and 

local public policy issues; 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
2 

HCON 307 RFS 

Whereas these papers are crucial to the public’s understanding of the role of Congress in making the Nation’s 

laws and responding to the needs of its citizens; 

Whereas because these papers serve as essential primary 

sources for the history of Congress, the study of these 

papers will illuminate the careers of individual Members; 

Whereas by custom, these papers are considered the personal 

property of the Member who receives and creates them, 

and it is therefore the Member who is responsible to decide on their ultimate disposition; and 

Whereas resources are available through the Office of the 

Clerk of the House of Representatives and the Secretary 

of the Senate to assist Members with the professional 

and cost-effective management and preservation of these 

papers: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that— 

3 (1) Members’ Congressional papers (including 

4 papers of Delegates and Resident Commissioners to 

5 the Congress) should be properly maintained; 

6 (2) each Member of Congress should take all 

7 necessary measures to manage and preserve the 

8 Member’s own Congressional papers; and 

9 (3) each Member of Congress should be encour10 aged to arrange for the deposit or donation of the 

11 Member’s own noncurrent Congressional papers with 

12 a research institution that is properly equipped to 

13 care for them, and to make these papers available 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
3 

HCON 307 RFS 

1 for educational purposes at a time the Member con2 siders appropriate. 

Passed the House of Representatives March 5, 

2008. 

Attest: LORRAINE C. MILLER, 

Clerk. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-6963

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ROY KWACZALA,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief

District Judge. (CR-93-142)

Submitted: October 18, 2001 Decided: October 26, 2001

Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Roy Kwaczala, Appellant Pro Se. Brian Lee Whisler, OFFICE OF THE

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Roy Kwaczala appeals from the district court’s order denying

his petition for a writ of coram nobis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1651

(1994). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the

reasoning of the district court. United States v. Kwaczala, No.

CR-93-142 (W.D.N.C. Mar. 6, 2001). 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.

AFFIRMED
No. 54887.

#### Morris, Mann & Reilly, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 113516-K/91500 and 113517-K/91499 (Chicago).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of leather miniature boxing gloves and baseball gloves or other leather articles similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Ignaz Strauss & Co., Inc.*(37 C. C. P. A. 32, C. A. D. 415), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
District Permitted Solid Fuel-Fired Boilers 

Size 

MMBtu/hr 

Type Existing NOx 

Control Technology 

Actual Permit NOx Limit Fuel Type 

259 Circulating 

fluidized bed 

SNCR 27.2 lb/hr 

(≈ 0.103 lb/MMBtu) 

(≈ 80 ppmv @3% O2) 

Biomass 

317 Fluidized bed SNCR 27.8 lb/hr 

(≈ 0.106 lb/MMBtu) 

(≈ 83 ppmv @ 3% O2) 

Biomass 

460 Fluidized bed SNCR 50 lb/hr 

(≈ 0.189 lb/MMBtu) 

(≈ 146 ppmv @ 3% O2) 

Biomass and urban wood waste 

352 Circulating 

fluidized bed 

SNCR 0.08 lb/MMBtu 

(≈ 62 ppmv @ 3%O2) 

Biomass, construction wood 

waste, and urban wood waste 

6.7 

Not subject to 

rule because 

emissions are 

less than 10 

tpy NOx. 

Combustion Control 2.6 lb/ton or 25.3 lb/day; fired

on sawdust/pumace 

0.7 lb/ton or 6.3 lb/day fired on 

walnut or pistachio shells 

Sawdust, pumace, walnut, 

pistachio shells 

9 Combustion Control 2.6 lb/ton or 25.3 lb/day fired 

on sawdust/pumace 

0.7 lb/ton or 6.3 lb/day fired on 

walnut or pistachio shells

Sawdust, pumace, walnut, 

pistachio shells 

11.5 MW Traveling grate FGR and SNCR 0.09 lb/MMBtu 

(≈ 69.9ppmv@3%O2) 

Biomass, construction wood 

waste, and urban wood waste 

400 Bubbling 

fluidized bed 

SNCR 0.1 lb/MMBtu 

(≈ 77.6 ppmv@3%O2) 

Biomass, construction wood 

waste, and urban wood waste 

315 SNCR 0.1 lb/MMBtu 

(≈ 77.6 ppmv@3%O) 

Biomass, construction wood 

waste, and urban wood waste 

171.2 Wellons 

combustion 

cyclo blast 

furnace

Low NOx burner 

with FGR and SCR 

84 ppmv@3%O2 (≈ 0.108 

lb/MMBtu) 

Biomass and construction wood 

waste 

178 Circulating 

fluidized bed 

SNCR 49.4 ppmv@3%O2 

(≈ 0.067 lb/MMBtu) 

Coal, fluid coke, delayed coke, 

or tire derived fuel 

280 Circulating 

fluidized bed 

SNCR 0.04 Lb/MMBtu @24-hr 

average 

(≈ 29.3 ppmv @3%O2) 

Coal, fluid coke, delayed coke, 

or tire derived fuel 

49.9 MW Circulating 

fluidized bed 

Low-Temperature 

Staged Combustion 

with SNCR 

0.2 lb/MMBtu 

(≈ 146.7 ppmv @3%O2) 

Coal, petroleum coke, or tire 

derived fuel 

36 MW 

(389 

MMBtu/hr) 

Circulating bed 

combustor 

Low-Temperature 

Staged Combustion 

with SNCR 

0.1 lb/MMBtu 

(≈ 73.4 ppmv @3%O2) 

Coal or petroleum coke 

36 MW 

(389 

MMBtu/hr))

Circulating bed 

combustor 

Low-Temperature 

Staged Combustion 

with SNCR 

0.1 lb/MMBtu 

(≈ 73.4 ppmv @3%O2) 

Coal or petroleum coke 

30 MW 

(320 

MMBtu/hr) 

Fluidized bed SNCR 28 ppmv @3-hr period 

(≈0.038 lb/MMBtu) 

Petroleum coke 

173.3 Stokerspreader SNCR 200 ppmv@12%CO2 

(≈ 0.35 lb/MMBtu @ 3% O2) 

Municipal Solid Waste 

173.3 SNCR 200 ppmv@12%CO2 

(≈ 0.35 lb/MMBtu @ 3% O2) 

Municipal Solid Waste
#### F. W. Woolworth Co. *v.*United States

No. 6095.

Invoice dated Sonneberg, Germany, October 25, 1939.

Certified October 27, 1939.

Entered at Baltimore, Md., November 28, 1939.

Entry No. 1774/1.

(Decided February 2, 1945)

*Sharretts & liillis (Edward P. Sharretts*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General *(Daniel I. Auster,*special attorney), for the defendant.

Kincheloe, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> It is hereby stipulated, by and between counsel for the respective parties hereto», subject to the approval of the court, that the facts and circumstances relating to the item of 10 per centum commission in the case listed in the annexed schedule, identified on the invoices with “xx” in green ink and the initials CHR of Examiner Charles H. Ritz, are in all material respects the same as the facts and circumstances relating to the item of 10 per centum commission specified in the invoices relating to glass tree ornaments, novelties, and figures covered by reappraisements 113038-A, 113040-A, and 113468-A of the F. W. Woolworth Co. and passed upon by the United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals in *United States*v. *S. S. Kresge Co., B. Shackman & Co., Rice & Co. Corp., Strauss-Eckardt Co., Inc., F. W. Woolworth Co.,*26 C. C. P. A. 349, 352, wherein the court held that “A purchasing commission, charged for the handling of merchandise, is not a proper part of dutiable value.”

> It is further stipulated and agreed, that on the date of exportation of the merchandise involved in the case listed in the annexed schedule, identified on the invoices with “xx” in green ink and the initials CHR of Examiner Charles H. Ritz, articles such and similar thereto were freely offered for sale and sold to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country of exportation in the usual wholesale quantities and in 'the ordinary course of trade for exportation to the United States at the *per se*unit invoice prices, plus 3)4 per centum social assessments for insurance, vacation, and holiday costs, plus packing, as invoiced, and that there was no higher foreign value.

> As to all other items, the appeal is abandoned.

> It is further stipulated and agreed, that the record in *United States*v. *S. S. Kresge Co. et al.,*26 C. C. P. A. 349, 352, be incorporated herein and that the said appeal to reappraisement is submitted on this stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise represented on the invoice by the items marked “xx” in green ink and the initials OHR of Examiner Charles H. Ritz, and that such values are the *per se*unit invoice prices, plus *3%*per centum social assessments for insurance, vacation," and holiday costs, plus packing, as invoiced.

*331The appeal having been abandoned insofar as it relates to all other merchandise, to that extent the appeal is hereby dismissed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-1187

NATALYA TAMARA HAMPEL; JOSEPH HAMPEL,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; FEDERAL BUREAU OF

INVESTIGATION,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge.

(CA-01-124-JFM)

Submitted: May 31, 2001 Decided: June 6, 2001

Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Natalya Tamara Hampel, Joseph Hampel, Appellants Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Natalya Tamara Hampel and Joseph Hampel appeal the district

court’s order summarily dismissing their complaint alleging that

defendants acted under color of federal law to deprive the Hampels

of their constitutional rights. We have reviewed the record and

the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Hampel v.

United States, No. CA-01-124-JFM (D. Md. Jan. 29, 2001). 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.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 11.1   

                                 COMPETITIVE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
                        Schedule of Computation of Earnings Per Share
                                       (Unaudited)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                            Nine months                Quarter
                                           ended April 30           ended April 30     
                                            
                                          1997        1996          1997        1996   

<S>                                   <C>           <C>          <C>          <C>
Net income (loss) applicable to
  common stock                        $(1,170,359)  $ (521,488)  $ (398,463)  $ (216,055)


Common and common equivalent shares -
    primary:
  Weighted average common shares
    outstanding                         5,910,907    5,842,467    5,921,172    5,882,638
  Adjustments for assumed exercise of
    stock options                          60,552*      43,979*      54,201*      70,694*
  Adjustments for assumed exercise of
    stock warrants                          6,599*      12,521*       6,146*      34,003*
  Weighted average number of common
    and common equivalent shares
    outstanding                         5,978,058    5,898,967    5,981,519    5,987,335

Common and common equivalent shares -
    fully diluted:
  Weighted average common shares
    outstanding                         5,910,907    5,842,467    5,921,172    5,882,638
  Adjustments for assumed exercise of
    stock options                          60,552*      73,501*      54,201*      79,567*
  Adjustments for assumed exercise of
    stock warrants                          6,599*      38,597*       6,146*      38,597*
  Weighted average number of common
    and common equivalent shares
    outstanding                         5,978,058    5,954,565    5,981,519    6,000,802

Net income (loss) per share of
  common stock:
    Primary and fully diluted         $     (0.20)  $    (0.09)  $    (0.07)  $    (0.04)
</TABLE>

* Anti-dilutive.

These calculations are submitted in accordance with Regulation S-K item 601
(b) (11) which differs from the requirements of paragraph 40 of Accounting
Principles Board Opinion No. 15 because they produce an anti-dilutive result.
No. 53808.

protests 148430-K, etc. (New York).

#### Daoud S. Dallal *&*Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
# Calibration, Parker-Imperial

# Calibration, Hoover-Imperial
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kevin Patrick SZABO, Defendant-Appellant.

Nos. 04-13492 & No. 04-13581

Non-Argument Calendar.

D.C. Docket No. 03-00218-CR-CB.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Sept. 9, 2005.

Kristen Gartman Rogers, K. Lyn Hill-man, S. Dist. of A1 Federal Defenders Organization, Mobile, AL, for Appellant.

David Andrew Sigler, U.S. Attorney’s Office-Southern Dist. of Alabama, Mobile, AL, for Appellee.

Before ANDERSON, BARKETT and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

PER CURIAM:

This appeal of Kevin Patrick Szabo regarding the imposition of his sentence is on remand from the Supreme Court of the United States for further consideration in the light of *United States v. Booker,*543 U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). *See Szabo v. United States,*— U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 1998, 161 L.Ed.2d 853 (2005). We previously affirmed Szabo’s sentence. *United States v. Szabo,*127 Fed.Appx. 473 (11th Cir.2004). After reconsideration, we vacate Szabo’s sentence and remand this case to the district court for resentencing.

Szabo, a federal prisoner convicted on two counts of bank robbery, appealed the imposition of a sentencing enhancement under section 2B3.1(b)(2)(F) of the United States Sentencing Guidelines for making a threat of death. Szabo argued, under *Blakely v. Washington,*524 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), that the admissions he made in his plea agreements that during the robberies he had told the bank tellers “ T have a gun’ (or words to that effect)” were insufficient to prove that he had made a threat of death. Because Szabo’s admissions were sufficient to support the enhancement and this Court had held that *Blakely*did not apply to the federal sentencing guidelines, we affirmed Szabo’s sentence.

On remand, Szabo does not argue that his admissions were insufficient to support the sentencing enhancement for making a *288threat of death. Szabo challenges only the imposition of his sentence under a mandatory guideline system. Because Szabo objected to his sentence on the grounds of *Blakely,*he properly preserved this objection. *See United States v. Mathenia,*409 F.3d 1289, 1291 (11th Cir.2005). We review Szabo’s *Booker*objection, therefore, to determine if the error was harmless. *Id.*Statutory *Booker*error “is harmless if, viewing the proceedings in their entirety, a court determines that the error did not affect the [sentence], or had but very slight effect.” *Id.*at 1292 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The government bears the burden to show that the error was harmless. *Id.*

The government has not established that the error did not affect Szabo’s sentence or “had but very slight effect.” The sentence, therefore, is vacated and this case remanded to the district court for resentencing.

VACATED AND REMANDED.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

                           PROVANT, INC. SUBSIDIARIES


           1.     PROVANT Services, Inc.*
           2.     PROVANT Utah, Inc.*
           3.     PMSI-Project Mentors, Inc.*
           4.     Sales Performance International, Inc.*
           5.     Senn-Delaney Leadership Consulting Group, Inc.*
           6.     Solution Selling, Inc.*
           7.     Star Mountain, Inc. **
           8.     American Media Incorporated***
           9.     FPMI Communications, Inc. ***
          10.     J. Howard & Associates, Inc. ***
          11.     KC-EP, Inc. ***
          12.     MOHR Learning, Inc. ***
          13.     Star Media, Inc. ***
          14.     Star Digital, Inc. ***
          15.     Strategic Interactive, Inc.***
          16.     Decker Communications, Inc.+
          17.     Novations Group, Inc.+
          18.     BT. Novations, Inc.++



LEGEND
*        wholly owned subsidiary of PROVANT, Inc.
**       wholly owned subsidiary of PROVANT Utah, Inc.
***      wholly owned subsidiary of Star Mountain, Inc.
+        wholly owned subsidiary of KC-EP, Inc.
++       wholly owned subsidiary of Novations Group, Inc.

All of PROVANT's direct and indirect subsidiaries are Delaware corporations
except for American Media Incorporated, an Iowa corporation, and Senn-Delaney
Leadership Consulting Group, Inc., a California corporation.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

MUSTIFA RANDALL,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 190 EAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 10th day of September, 2019

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
EXHIBIT
15.1




INDEPENDENT
REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM’S CONSENT




We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 333-117241) pertaining to the Fundtech Ltd. 1997 Israeli Share Option
Plan for the Employees of Fundtech Ltd., the Fundtech Ltd. 1999 Employee Option
Plan, and the Fundtech Ltd. Directors’ Option Plan, of our reports dated June 9,
2009, relating to the financial statements of Fundtech Ltd. (which report
expresses an unqualified opinion), and the effectiveness of Fundtech Ltd.'s
internal control over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on
Form F-20 of Fundtech Ltd. for the year ended December 31,
2008.





/s/ BRIGHTMAN ALMAGOR &
    COBRIGHTMAN
      ALMAGOR & COCertified
      Public AccountantsA
      member of Deloitte Touche TohmatsuTel-Aviv,
      IsraelJune
      11, 2009
#### F. W. Woolworth Co. *v.*United States

No. 6798.

Inyoice dated Nottingham, England, March 1945.

Certified March 1945.

Entered at New York, N. Y.; May 3, 1945.

Entry No. 730512.

(Decided January 23, 1947)

*Sharretts & Hillis (Hadley S. King*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Bao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Tilson, Judge

This appeal has been submitted for decision upon a stipulation to the effect that the issues herein are similar in all material respects to the issues involved in *United States*v. *Pitcairn,*C. A. D. 334, and the record in that case has been admitted in evidence herein.

Accepting this stipulation as a statement of fact, and following the cited authority, I find and hold the proper dutiable export values of the merchandise covered by this appeal to be the values found by the appraiser, less any additions made by the importer on entry to meet advances made by the appraiser in similar cases then pending on appeal. Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
No. 46380.

#### Protest 54195-K of M. Pressner & Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the kazoos in question are composed in chief value of metal, not plated, the claim at 45 percent under paragraph 397 was sustained.
May 25, 1944

No. 49445.

#### Protests 6003-K, etc., of Argonaut Liquor Co. et al.

Plaintiff’s application for rehearing granted.