alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2014315EN.01002802.xml

| 15.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 315/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 315/28

---

Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 17 July 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Autorità per la Vigilanza sui Contratti pubblici di lavori, servizi e forniture — Italy) — Emmeci Srl v Cotral SpA

(Case C-427/13) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Autorità per la Vigilanza sui Contratti pubblici di lavori, servizi e forniture - Article 267 TFEU - Concept of ‘court or tribunal of a Member State’ - Lack of jurisdiction of the Court))

2014/C 315/44

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Autorità per la Vigilanza sui Contratti pubblici di lavori, servizi e forniture

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Emmeci Srl

Applicant:

Defendant: Cotral SpA

Defendant:

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

The Court of Justice of the European Union clearly has no jurisdiction to answer the questions referred by the Autorità per la Vigilanza sui Contratti pubblici di lavori, servizi e forniture (Italy), by its decision of 22 May 2013 (Case C-427/13).

---

(1)  OJ C 325, 9.11.2013.

1

---
Exhibit 23.2


INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.
333-66620, No. 333-66123, No. 333-66121, No. 333-66119, and No. 033-63865 of ATC
Healthcare, Inc. and Subsidiaries (the "Company") on Forms S-8 of our report
dated May 17, 2001, relating to our audit of the Company's financial statements
for the year ended February 28, 2001, appearing in this Annual Report on Form
10-K of the Company for the year ended February 28, 2003.

/s/  Deloitte & Touche LLP

Jericho, New York
June 11, 2003
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

             [BROUSSARD, POCHE, LEWIS & BREAUX, L.L.P. LETTERHEAD]

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


 As Independent Auditors, we hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in
 this Form 10-K of American Bancorp, Inc. for the years ended December 31, 2001,
 2000 and 1999 of our report dated January 16, 2002, which appears on Pages 28
 through 57 of the annual report to shareholders.


                                    /s/ BROUSSARD, POCHE, LEWIS & BREAUX, L.L.P.


 Lafayette, Louisiana
 January 16, 2002
Exhibit 32

ANSWERTHINK, INC

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Answerthink, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 29, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), we, Ted A. Fernandez, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer, and Grant M. Fitzwilliam, Executive Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer, of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13 (a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Ted A. FernandezTed A. FernandezChairman of the Board and Chief Executive OfficerMarch 13, 2007/s/ Grant M. FitzwilliamGrant M. FitzwilliamExecutive Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial OfficerMarch 13, 2007


A signed original of this statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Answerthink, Inc. and
will be retained by Answerthink, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Evelyn Elias, Respondent, v New York City Human Resources Administration, Appellant. Workers’ Compensation Board, Respondent.

[614 NYS2d 332]

Cardona, P. J.

Appeals from two decisions of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed August 19, 1991 and November 9, 1992, which ruled that claimant’s claim for workers’ compensation benefits was timely filed.

Initially, claimant’s failure to give timely written notice was *872properly excused because the employer had actual notice of claimant’s injury at the time it occurred *(see,*Workers’ Compensation Law § 18). In addition, the record in this case provides substantial evidence for the decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board that the two-year Statute of Limitations of Workers’ Compensation Law § 28 did not bar claimant’s claim filed on March 10, 1987. The proof established that claimant sustained an injury to her back arising out of and in the course of employment by pushing a file cabinet drawer on October 15, 1985.

White, Casey, Weiss and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decisions are affirmed, without costs.
# C_2012151EN.01003101.xml

| 26.5.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 151/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.5.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 151/31

---

Action brought on 22 February 2012 — Cham v Council

(Case T-101/12)

2012/C 151/53

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Cham Holding Co. SA (Damas, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Declare the applicant’s action admissible and well founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare the applicant’s action admissible and well founded;

| — | In consequence, annul Decision 2011/782/CFSP of 1 December 2011 and Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 of 18 January 2012 and their subsequent implementing acts, insofar as they concern the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

In consequence, annul Decision 2011/782/CFSP of 1 December 2011 and Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 of 18 January 2012 and their subsequent implementing acts, insofar as they concern the applicant;

| — | Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those relied on in Cases T-432/11 Makhlouf v Council, (1) and T-433/11 Makhlouf v Council. (2)

Makhlouf

Council

1

Makhlouf

Council

2

---

(1)  OJ 2011 C 290, p. 13.

1

(2)  OJ 2011 C 290, p. 14.

2

---
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Nicola Fiore, Deceased. Nick Fiore, Nonparty Appellant; Marie Fiore et al., Respondents.

[614 NYS2d 237]

—In a proceeding to revoke the letters of administration issued to Susan Fiore Vales, the appeal is from an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Westchester County (Emanuelli, S.), dated October 7, 1992, which denied the nonparty appellant’s motion to quash a subpoena seeking his deposition and the production of documents alleged to be in his possession.

*638Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The information sought from the nonparty appellant is primarily related to a non-legal business transaction and does not implicate confidential communications between an attorney and a client *(see, Spectrum Sys. Intl. Corp. v Chemical Bank,*78 NY2d 371; *Rossi v Blue Cross & Blue Shield,*73 NY2d 588, 593; *People v Belge,*59 AD2d 307, 309). In any event, should the attorney-client privilege be implicated at the deposition, the appellant may make an objection at that time *(see, 305-7 W. 128th St. Corp. v Gold,*178 AD2d 251; *Verschell v Pike,*65 AD2d 622).

The Surrogate has broad discretion in revoking letters of administration based upon the particular circumstances of each individual case *(see,*SCPA 711, 713; *Stolz v New York Cent. R. R. Co.,*7 NY2d 269, 270). Therefore, it cannot be said that the information sought by the subpoena is irrelevant. Mangano, P. J., Thompson, O’Brien and Florio, JJ., concur.
#### United States *v.*Testing Machines, Inc.

No. 5981.

Invoice dated Montreal, P. Q., Canada, January 11, 1943.

Entered at New York, N. Y., January 26, 1943.

Entry No. 717569.

(Decided February 10, 1944)

*Paul P. Bao,*Assistant Attorney General *(Daniel I. Auster*and *Julius G. Paider, Jr.,*special attorneys), for the plaintiff.

*John D. Rode*for the defendant.

LawRence, Judge:

The collector of customs has appealed for a reappraisement of merchandise invoiced as “1 Canadian Standard Freeness Tester complete with all accessories.” It was appraised as entered at $145 United States currency plus 8 per centum sales tax. It does not appear of record what statutory value formed the basis of the appraisement. Regardless of that circumstance, however, it is my duty to determine the value of the merchandise whether or not the appraisement was defective or erroneous. *United States*v. *F. W. Woolworth Co. et al.,*22 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 184, T. D. 47126.

The Government contends that there was a foreign value for the merchandise in controversy. At the trial the case was submitted upon two reports of the acting United States Treasury attaché at Montreal, Canada. These reports were received in evidence as. *376exhibits 1 and 2 and are dated March 29 and July 20, 1943, respectively.

At the close of the Government’s case, defendant moved for an -order dismissing the appeal, which motion was taken under advisement. The motion is denied and an exception allowed to defendant.

At the outset it may be pointed out that exhibit 1 shows defendant to be the sole representative in the United States of the manufacturer and exporter, Robert Mitchell Co., Ltd., of Montreal, Canada. Obviously the merchandise was not freely offered for sale to all purchasers for export to the United States. Hence there is no export value under section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930.

It further appears from exhibit 1 that freenes's testers such as the -one imported were freely offered for sale in Canada for home consumption, usually one at a time, to all purchasers and in the ordinary course of trade at or about the date of exportation, for $225 Canadian currency, plus 8 per centum sales tax, packed, f. o. b. plant at Montreal, there being no discount for quantity, and that'í.lontreal, Canada, was the principal market for such testers, and I so find.

Although sales were generally made to users in Canada, it is fairly clear from the record that the price at which anyone could purchase said testers in Canada was as above indicated. Note *American Shipping Co.*v. *United States,*29 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 250, C. A. D. 198.

I therefore hold that the price at which Canadian standard freeness testers complete with all accessories were freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the ordinary course of trade in the principal market in Canada, namely, Montreal, in the usual wholesale quantity, at or about the time of exportation, was $225 Canadian currency, each, plus an 8 per centum sales tax, packed, f. o. b. the plant in Montreal, and that this is the foreign market value (section 402 (c) of said act).

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
ONE COMMERCE SQUARE, 40 SOUTH MAIN ST., MEMPHIS, TN 38103 March 5, 2013

U.S. Department of Transportation Docket Operations West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590

Dear, Sir / Madam:

In accordance with Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14CFR) § 11.61, Pinnacle Airlines, Inc., REXA-257A, petitions the Adminis trator for an extension of Exemption No.

3585 R to 3585 S, Docket FAA-2001-9379.

This extension will allow Pinnacle Airlines, Inc. continuation of relief from §121.613, 121.619(a), and 121.625 by allowing a part 121 operator to continue to dispatch airplanes under instrument flight rules when conditiona l language in a one-tim e increment of the

weather forecast states that the weather at the destination, alternate airport, or both airports

could be below the authorized weather minimu ms when other time increments of the

weather forecast state the weather conditions will be at or above the authorized weather

minimums.

Approval of this exemption for Pinnacle Airl ines will benefit the public good by improving the reliability of air service for many communities Pinnacle Airlines serves.

Thank you for your consideration of our request. Pl ease do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions concerning this proposal.

Respectfully,

Dave Wilson Director, Flight Operations dwilson@pncl.com
# United States Court of Appeals **for the Fifth Circuit**

____________ No. 23-11055 Summary Calendar

____________ United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee , versus Justin Cale Jones, Defendant—Appellant . ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 5:23-CR-13-1

______________________________ Before Smith, Willett, and Duncan, Circuit Judges . Per Curiam: * The Federal Public Defender appointe d to represent Justin Cale Jones has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Jones has not f iled a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED July 3, 2024 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 23-11055 Document: 59-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/03/2024No. 23-11055

2 concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingl y, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED , counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the appeal is DISMISSED . See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Case: 23-11055 Document: 59-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/03/2024
# C_2015146EN.01000802.xml

| 4.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 146/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/8

---

Order of the Court of 11 February 2015 — Orange v European Commission, French Republic, Département des Hauts-de-Seine, Sequalum SAS

(Case C-621/13 P) (1)

1

((Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - State aid - Compensation for public service costs relating to the establishment and operation of a very-high-speed broadband electronic communications network))

(2015/C 146/12)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Orange S.A. (represented by: D. Gillet and H. Viane, avocats)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: B. Stromssky and C. Urraca Caviedes, Agents), French Republic (represented by: J. Bousin and M.D. Colas, Agents), Departement des Hauts-de-Seine (represented by: G. O’Mahony, avocat), Sequalum SAS (represented by: L. Feldman, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings:

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Orange S.A. is ordered to pay the costs of the European Commission, French Republic, Département des Hauts-de-Seine, Sequalum SAS. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orange S.A. is ordered to pay the costs of the European Commission, French Republic, Département des Hauts-de-Seine, Sequalum SAS.

---

(1)  OJ C 39, 8.2.2014.

1

---
#### STATE ex rel. Leonard JOHNSON v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 98-KH-2910.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 8, 1999.

In re Johnson, Leroy; — Plaintiff(s); applying for supervisory and/or remedial writs; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, Div. “D”, No. 253-115.

Relator represents that the district court has failed to act timely on an application for post conviction relief he filed on *648or about May 15, 1996. If relator’s representation is correct, the district court is ordered to consider and act on the application. The district court is ordered to provide this Court with a copy of its judgment.

KNOLL, J., not on panel.
No. 96-5922.

#### Goudy *v.*Baker, Warden.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 144 (Monday, July 28, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 40342]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-19753]



DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP97-364-003]


Koch Gateway Pipeline Company; Notice of Compliance Filing

July 22, 1997.
    Take notice that on July 11, 1997, Koch Gateway Pipeline Company 
(Koch) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Fifth 
Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheet, to become effective 
June 1, 1997:

Substitute Seventh Revised Sheet No. 2705

    Koch states that this filing is in compliance with the Commission's 
order on compliance filing, issued on July 1, 1997, 80 FERC para. 
61,005 (1997). Koch states that the tariff sheet reflects the changes 
made in Docket No. RP97-115.
    Koch also states that it has served copied of this filing upon each 
person on the official service list compiled by the Secretary in this 
proceeding.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed as 
provided in Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests 
will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate 
action to be taken, but will not serve to make Protestants parties to 
the proceeding. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission 
and available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-19753 Filed 7-25-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**923/11 KA 08-02581**  PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., FAHEY, PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, AND SCONIERS, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

DARNELL NORTON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (KIMBERLY F. DUGUAY OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

MICHAEL C. GREEN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (JOSEPH D. WALDORF OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Francis A. Affronti, J.), rendered May 6, 2008. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of robbery in the first degree. The judgment was affirmed by order of this Court entered September 30, 2011 (87 AD3d 1310), and defendant on December 16, 2011 was granted leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals from the order of this Court (18 NY3d 861), and the Court of Appeals on May 8, 2012 reversed the order and remitted the case to this Court for clarification of the basis of this Court’s decision (___ NY3d ___ [May 8, 2012]).

Now, upon remittitur from the Court of Appeals,

It is hereby ORDERED that, upon remittitur from the Court of Appeals, the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: In a prior appeal ( People v Norton , 87 AD3d 1310, revd ___ NY3d ___ [May 8, 2012]), we summarily affirmed the judgment convicting defendant of robbery in the first degree (Penal Law § 160.15 [2]). Defendant had contended that his sentence was unduly harsh and severe. In reversing our order, the Court of Appeals concluded that this Court may not summarily affirm the judgment “without indicating whether [we] relied on the waiver [of the right to appeal] or determined that the sentencing claim lacked merit” ( Norton , ___ NY3d at ___). The Court remitted the matter to this Court “for clarification of the basis of [our] decision” ( id. at ___).

Upon remittal, we clarify that we previously reviewed the merits of defendant’s contention, having determined that there was no valid waiver of the right to appeal, and we concluded that the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Although Supreme Court referred to a waiver of the right to appeal at the time of the plea, no oral waiver**-2- 923/11 KA 08-02581** 

was elicited from defendant. In addition, neither the written waiver of the right to appeal in the record nor the court’s brief mention of that waiver during the plea proceeding distinguished the waiver of the right to appeal from those rights automatically forfeited upon a plea of guilty. Consequently, the record failed to “establish that the defendant understood that the right to appeal is separate and distinct from those rights automatically forfeited upon a plea of guilty” ( People v Lopez , 6 NY3d 248, 256).

Entered: June 15, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
**EXHIBIT
      21**





**SUBSIDIARIES**














First
      Federal Bank


Equity
      Services, Inc.
No. 40502.

#### Protests 943020-G, etc., of New York Merchandise Co., Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

On the records presented the protests were overruled.
No. 96-7542.

#### Barrett *v.*Nevada.

Sup. Ct. Nev. Certiorari denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1945 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1945

         To permit the televising of Supreme Court proceedings.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            December 5, 2011

 Mr. Durbin (for himself, Mr. Grassley, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Cornyn, and 
Mr. Blumenthal) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
         To permit the televising of Supreme Court proceedings.

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

SECTION 1. AMENDMENT TO TITLE 28.

    (a) In General.--Chapter 45 of title 28, United States Code, is 
amended by inserting at the end the following:
``Sec. 678. Televising Supreme Court proceedings
    ``The Supreme Court shall permit television coverage of all open 
sessions of the Court unless the Court decides, by a vote of the 
majority of justices, that allowing such coverage in a particular case 
would constitute a violation of the due process rights of 1 or more of 
the parties before the Court.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The chapter analysis for chapter 45 of 
title 28, United States Code, is amended by inserting at the end the 
following:

``678. Televising Supreme Court proceedings.''.
                                 <all>
```