alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2015073EN.01000601.xml

| 2.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 73/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 15 January 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas — Lithuania) — Birutė Šiba v Arūnas Devėnas

(Case C-537/13) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 93/13/EEC - Scope - Consumer contracts - Contract for the provision of legal services concluded between a lawyer and a consumer)

(2015/C 073/07)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Birutė Šiba

Defendant: Arūnas Devėnas

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as applying to standard form contracts for legal services, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, concluded by a lawyer with a natural person acting for purposes which are outside his trade, business or profession.

---

(1)  OJ C 9, 11.1.2014.

---
No. 42108.

#### Protests 827483-G, etc., of G. Rossano & Bro., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

On the authority of Abstract 40880 the protests were sustained.
# C_2013171EN.01004102.xml

| 15.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/41

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 24.4.2013 — Demeneix v Commission

(Case F-96/12) (1)

1

(Civil Service - Open competition - Not included on the reserve list - Criterion related to professional experience - Scope of discretion)

2013/C 171/85

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant:
  Laurent Demeneix (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi and A. Blot, lawyers)

Applicant:

Laurent Demeneix

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

Defendant:

European Commission

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision of the selection board EPSO/AD/207/11 upholding the decision not to include the applicant on the reserve list on the ground that the applicant does not fulfil certain specific criteria for admission to that competition and a claim for damages.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Demeneix to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Demeneix to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 343, 10.11.12, p. 23.

1

---
Exhibit 32.2CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002In connection with the quarterly report of Caneum, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSBfor the quarter ended September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned principal financial officer of the Company,hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.Date: November 14, 2007
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1913 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1913

To require the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration to 
prescribe regulations requiring air carriers to provide passengers with 
       certain amenities and facilities, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           November 18, 2011

 Ms. Landrieu introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
   referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To require the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration to 
prescribe regulations requiring air carriers to provide passengers with 
       certain amenities and facilities, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Basic Airline Services to Improve 
Customer Satisfaction Act''.

SEC. 2. REGULATIONS REQUIRING AIR CARRIERS TO PROVIDE CERTAIN AMENITIES 
              AND FACILITIES TO PASSENGERS.

    Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this 
Act, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall 
prescribe regulations--
            (1) to require an air carrier operating under part 121 of 
        title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, to permit each passenger 
        who has purchased a ticket for air transportation on the air 
        carrier to, without paying a charge in addition to the price of 
        the ticket--
                    (A) check one bag that is not considered overweight 
                or oversized pursuant to the policy of the air carrier 
                in effect on the day before the date of the enactment 
                of this Act;
                    (B) carry on to the aircraft one personal item and 
                one carry-on bag that are not considered overweight or 
                oversized pursuant to that policy; and
                    (C) once the passenger boards the aircraft, have 
                access to--
                            (i) a seat;
                            (ii) potable water; and
                            (iii) bathroom facilities; and
            (2) to impose a civil penalty on an air carrier that fails 
        to comply with the regulations prescribed under paragraph (1).
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT
      23.2





**Consent
      of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**





We
      consent to the incorporation by reference in
      Registration Statements (No. 333-113852 on Form S-8, No. 333-137501 on Form
      S-8,
      No. 333-124003 on Form S-3, No. 333-124278 on Form S-3, and No. 333-140354
      on
      Form S-3) of Capital Lease Funding, Inc. of our report dated March 7, 2007
      relating to our audit of the consolidated financial statements, financial
      schedules and internal control over financial reporting, which appear in this
      Annual Report on Form 10-K of Capital Lease Funding, Inc. for the year ended
      December 31, 2006.





/s/
        McGladrey & Pullen LLP


New
      York,
      New York


March
      7,
      2007
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLANewsNews Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# Distribution San Diego’s Walker promoted to Lieutenant

By  DLA Distribution Public Affairs

                SAN DIEGO  –              
Navy Lt. j.g. Marc Walker, military liaison officer, Defense Logistics Agency Distribution San Diego, California, was promoted during a ceremony held at DDDC Dec. 30.

DDDC Commander Navy Capt. Jerome R. White, promoted Walker to the rank of lieutenant as a result of his demonstrated performance.

Walker expressed his appreciation in his remarks. "Thanks to everyone who supported me on my journey to this point in my career. It is a pleasure to be here and to learn from the decades of logistics experience that many of you have here at DDDC."

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

DLADLA DistributionDLA Distribution San Diegopromotion
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1563 

To require the President’s budget to include, at a minimum, a request 

for disaster funding based on to the 10 year average. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 15, 2011 

Ms. SNOWE (for herself and Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the 

Budget 

A BILL 

To require the President’s budget to include, at a minimum, 

a request for disaster funding based on to the 10 year 

average. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Safeguarding Disaster 

5 Funding Act of 2011’’. 

6 SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO TITLE 31. 

7 Section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, is 

8 amended by inserting at the end the following: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

•S 1563 IS

1 ‘‘(39)(A) An allowance for disaster funding of 

2 at least the average amount of disaster funding for 

3 the previous 10 years, excluding the highest and low4 est years. The amount of this allowance shall be cal5 culated by the Director of the Office of Management 

6 and Budget and submitted to the President. 

7 ‘‘(B) In this paragraph, the term ‘disaster 

8 funding’— 

9 ‘‘(i) means funding— 

10 ‘‘(I) provided under the Robert T. 

11 Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency 

12 Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.) 

13 for an emergency declared under section 

14 501 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Re15 lief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 

16 U.S.C. 5191) or a major disaster declared 

17 under section 401 of the Robert T. Staf18 ford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assist19 ance Act (42 U.S.C. 5170); 

20 ‘‘(II) for disaster assistance provided 

21 under section 7(b) of the Small Business 

22 Act (15 U.S.C. 636(b)); and 

23 ‘‘(III) for disaster assistance provided 

24 by the Secretary of Agriculture; and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

3 

•S 1563 IS

1 ‘‘(ii) includes funding provided under sec2 tions 304 and 420 of the Robert T. Stafford 

3 Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act 

4 (42 U.S.C. 5147 and 5187).’’. 

5 SEC. 3. CONFORMING AMENDMENT TO THE BBA. 

6 Section 251(b)(2)(D) of the Balanced Budget and 

7 Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is amended by 

8 striking clause (iii) and inserting the following: 

9 ‘‘(iii) For purposes of this subparagraph, 

10 the term ‘disaster relief’ shall have the same 

11 meaning given the term ‘disaster funding’ in 

12 section 1105(a)(39)(B) of title 31, United 

13 States Code.’’. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,

J ustices

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

_______________________________________ __ Clerk December 2, 2009

jm 

# Order

December 2, 2009

139623

EDDIE L. DILLARD,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 139623

CoA: 292778

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Defendant-Appellee.

___________________ ________________

On order of the Chief Justice, plai ntiff-appellant having failed to pay the partial filing fee as required by the order of September 9, 2009, the Clerk of the Court is hereby directed to close this file.
Case No. 8,690.

#### M’CLANAGHAN v. M’CARTY.

[Cited in Fisher v. Consequa, Case No. 4.816. Nowhere reported; opinion not now accessible.}
33765.

#### DUKE v. SMITH.

Nichols, Chief Justice.

1. In this contempt action brought by the former wife against the former husband as a result of his having ceased making payments on her automobile and life insurance policy after her remarriage, it was not error for the trial court to admit into evidence over objection of the former husband their agreement, which was at least partially incorporated into their divorce decree, and the automobile loan payment booklet and life insurance policy. The appellant former husband’s enumerations of error in this regard are wholly lacking in merit.

2. Also lacking merit is the appellant’s enumeration of error contending that the agreement is not incorporated into the parties’ final decree of divorce. The present case is distinguished from *Newton v. Newton,*222 Ga. 175 (149 SE2d 128) (1966), in that the existence of the agreement in *Newton*merely was recited but no judicial ruling or *208disposition as to it was made in the decree. In the present case, the decree contains an express ruling and determination that "the property of the parties shall be divided as set forth in the attached Separation Agreement.”

Argued July 11, 1978

Decided September 6, 1978.

*Joseph S. Skelton, Robert E. Ridgway, Jr.,*for appellant.

*Charles D. Strickland,*for appellee.

3. The former husband is obligated by the separation agreement that is incorporated, at least in part, into the divorce decree to make periodic payments on the automobile loan and on the former wife’s insurance policy until all payments due on each are paid completely. A construction of the entire agreement establishes that the subject clauses provide for property settlement, rather than alimony, despite the fact that they are preceded by a general, introductory clause which refers to "the following payments,” including these payments, being for the "support and maintenance” of the wife and children. *Duncan v. Duncan,*239 Ga. 789 (238 SE2d 902) (1977).

4. There is no merit in appellant’s contentions that the final decree of divorce would not provide a basis for a contempt action because there was no specific command for the appellant to pay the sums in question. *Stanley v. Stanley,*240 Ga. 856 (242 SE2d 626) (1978). All previous decisions of this court to the contrary are disapproved and will not be followed.

5. The remaining enumerations of error are without merit.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
| (1)   | the                Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of PrimePlayer Incorporated for the                quarter ended September 30, 2004 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for                the                quarter ended September 30, 2004, fairly presents in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of PrimePlayer                Incorporated. |
|-----------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   By: |   /s/  Alexander                Gilliland                                 |   |
|-----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|  Name:     |  Alexander                Gilliland                                                                                                                                                                                                                      |
|  Title:    |  Principal                Executive Officer,Principal                Financial Officer and Director                                                                                                                                                      |
|  Date:     |  May                25, 2006                                                                                                                                                                                                                             |
Exhibit
23.1





CONSENT
OF ERNST & YOUNG, LLP







Consent
of Independent Auditors





We
consent to the reference to our firm under the caption "Experts" and to the use
in this Annual Report on Form 40-F of our reports dated January 25, 2010 with
respect to the consolidated statements of financial position of MDS Inc. (the
“Company”) as at October 31, 2009 and 2008 and the consolidated statements of
operations, shareholders’ equity and comprehensive income and cash flows for
each of the years in the three year period ended October 31, 2009 and the
effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of the Company as at
October 31, 2009, which appear in the Company’s 2009 Annual Report to
Shareholders.





We also
consent to the incorporation by reference of our reports dated January 25, 2010
in the following Registration Statements of the Company:





1.
            Registration
      Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-12056),


2.
            Registration
      Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-12058),


3.
            Registration
      Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-12548),
and


4.
            Registration
      Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-13538).








/s/ Ernst &
Young LLP





Toronto,
Canada


January
25, 2010
# C_2015107EN.01001101.xml

| 30.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 107/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 107/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 February 2015 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Criminal proceedings against Miguel M. (C-627/13), Thi Bich Ngoc Nguyen, Nadine Schönherr (C-2/14)

(Joined Cases C-627/13 and C-2/14) (1)

((Request for a preliminary ruling - Drug precursors - Monitoring of trade between the Member States - Regulation (EC) No 273/2004 - Monitoring of trade between the European Union and third countries - Regulation (EC) No 111/2005 - Trade in medicinal products containing ephedrine or pseudoephedrine - Definition of ‘scheduled substance’ - Composition - Exclusion of all medicinal products or only those containing scheduled substances and the composition of which does allow those substances to be readily extracted - Directive 2001/83/EC - Definition of ‘medicinal product’))

(2015/C 107/13)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties in the main proceedings

Miguel M. (C-627/13), Thi Bich Ngoc Nguyen, Nadine Schönherr (C-2/14)

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 2(a) of Regulation (EC) No 273/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 on drug precursors and of Council Regulation (EC) No 111/2005 of 22 December 2004 laying down rules for the monitoring of trade between the Community and third countries in drug precursors respectively must be interpreted as meaning that a medicinal product as defined in Article 1(2) of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1901/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006, cannot be categorised as a ‘scheduled substance’ as such, even if it contains a substance referred to in Annex I to Regulation No 273/2004 and in the annex to Regulation No 111/2005 and can easily be used or extracted by readily applicable or economically viable means.

---

(1)  OJ C 39, 8.2.2014.

OJ C 71, 8.3.2014.

---
#### PATRIOT PORTFOLIO, LLC, petitioner, v. Harry W. WEINSTEIN, et al.

No. 98-1618.

Supreme Court of the United States.

June 24, 1999.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied.
No. 96-7938.

#### Holman *v.*Maryland.

Ct. Sp. App. Md. Cer-tiorari denied.