alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2013215EN.01000702.xml

| 27.7.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 215/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.7.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 215/7

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim (Germany) lodged on 14 May 2013 — Ekkehard Aleweld v Condor Flugdienst GmbH

(Case C-262/13)

2013/C 215/09

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ekkehard Aleweld

Applicant:

Defendant: Condor Flugdienst GmbH

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Is there also a right under Article 7 of Regulation No 261/20004 (1) to compensation where the departure of the booked flight is delayed by more than three hours, the passenger rebooks on another airline and the delay on arrival compared with the original flight is thereby appreciably reduced, whilst both the original flight and the replacement flight arrive at the original destination far more than three hours late? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is there also a right under Article 7 of Regulation No 261/20004 (1) to compensation where the departure of the booked flight is delayed by more than three hours, the passenger rebooks on another airline and the delay on arrival compared with the original flight is thereby appreciably reduced, whilst both the original flight and the replacement flight arrive at the original destination far more than three hours late?

1

| 2. | If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: is it decisive in this regard that the period of five hours, specified in Article 6(1)(iii), for application of Article 8(1) of the regulation has or has not expired? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: is it decisive in this regard that the period of five hours, specified in Article 6(1)(iii), for application of Article 8(1) of the regulation has or has not expired?

| 3. | Is it material whether the rebooking was made independently by the passenger or with the defendant’s help? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is it material whether the rebooking was made independently by the passenger or with the defendant’s help?

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).

1

---
No. 74-5711.

#### O’Brien *v.*United States District Court for the Central District of California.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### Isaac Mason *versus*Samuel Currier.

Exceptions to the determination of a Judge at *Nisi Prius*in a case unconditionally submitted to him under the statute of 1852, do not lie.

This action was referred to Rice, J., presiding at *Nisi Prius,*under the provisions of the act of 1852, chap. 246, sec. 12, and judgment rendered for the plaintiff.

There was no reservation of any right to except to the determination of the judge.

*J. M. Meserve,*counsel for the plaintiff;

to the point that *356exceptions do not lie in a case like this, referred to the language of the statute and cited. 39 Maine R., 315, 367.

*A. G. Stinchfield,*counsel for the defendant.

Davis, J.

This case was submitted to tbe presiding judge under statute of 1852, with no right to except reserved to either party.

*Exceptions overruled.*
# C_2013377EN.01000502.xml

| 21.12.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 377/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 377/5

---

Appeal brought on 15 January 2013 by Constantin Hârsulescu against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 13 November 2012 in Case T-400/12 Constantin Hârsulescu v Romania

(Case C-78/13 P)

2013/C 377/09

Language of the case: Romanian

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Constantin Hârsulescu (represented by: I.L. Cioplea, lawyer)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Romania

Other party to the proceedings:

By order of 3 October 2013, the Court of Justice (Tenth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and the application for legal aid.

---
Case 3STo. 14,037.

#### TIGHLMAN v. WERE.

[Cited in Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co. v. Willis, Case No. 5,603. Nowhere reported; opinion not now accessible.]
(December 7, 1999)

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Demetrius Spencer, Also Known as Sheldon Summers, Appellant.

[701 NYS2d 1]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Daniel FitzGerald, J.), rendered March 16, 1993, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to concurrent terms of 7 to 14 years and 3 to 6 years, respectively, and judgment, same court (Micki Scherer, J.), rendered July 8, 1996, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of bail jumping in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a concurrent term of 2 to 4 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s contention that the court’s accomplice corroboration charge misled the jury as to whether the corroboration requirement applied to each of the crimes charged is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the charge, read as a whole, clearly informed the jury that they were required to find independent evidence connecting defendant to each crime charged.

Defendant was properly tried in absentia. By absconding af*23ter being told that his case was on trial and that he was to return the next day for jury selection, defendant forfeited his right to be present at trial *(see, People v Sanchez,*65 NY2d 436). This forfeiture applied to his ultimate trial held five months after his disappearance where the record established that defendant fled to a foreign country with no intention of returning and hid his identity so as to avoid apprehension.

We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion. Concur— Ellerin, P. J., Wallach, Lerner, Rubin and Buckley, JJ.
Exhibit 32.1





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 Report of China Natural Gas, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Shuwen Kang, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:





(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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





Date: December 28, 2011/s/  Shuwen KangShuwen Kang, Principal Executive Officer
#### Josephine Thomas et al., Respondents, v Price-Mart Inc., Appellant, et al., Defendant.

[699 NYS2d 729]

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant *375Price-Mart Inc. appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golia, J.), dated January 11, 1999, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellant.

The injured plaintiff fell when her foot became caught on the bottom of a clothes bin located at the top of two steps in the appellant’s department store. The plaintiff had seen the bin when she entered the store and as she was walking up the steps. The record establishes that the bin did not present an inherently dangerous condition. Furthermore, since the bin was readily observable by the reasonable use of one’s senses, the appellant had no duty to warn the injured plaintiff of the allegedly dangerous condition (see, *Wint v Fulton St. Art Gallery,*263 AD2d 541; *O’Connor v Katonah Museum of Art,*251 AD2d 561; *Reuscher v Pergament Home Ctrs.,*247 AD2d 603; *Sewer v Fat Albert’s Warehouse,*235 AD2d 414). Accordingly, the appellant’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted. Bracken, J. P., Santucci, Altman, Friedmann and H. Miller, JJ., concur.
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

# DLA 60th Anniversary Shout Out: John Webber Jr., DLA Distribution Susquehanna

By  DLA Distribution Public Affairs

                NEW CUMBERLAND, Pa.  –              
00:25VIDEO  | 00:25 |DLA 60th Anniversary Shout Out: John Webber Jr., DLA Distribution Susquehanna

John Webber, Jr., DLA Distribution Susquehanna, sends a shout out to DLA for the 60th Anniversary.

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

DLA 60th AnniversaryDLA 60th Anniversary Distributionshout out
# C_2013071EN.01001101.xml

| 9.3.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 71/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.3.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/11

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 2 January 2013 — Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects, Chef de l’agence de la direction nationale du renseignement et des enquêtes douanières v Humeau Beaupreau SAS

(Case C-2/13)

2013/C 71/17

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects, Chef de l’agence de la direction nationale du renseignement et des enquêtes douanières

Appellants:

Respondent: Humeau Beaupreau SAS

Respondent:

Question referred

Question referred

In the process of manufacturing footwear, must the operations of shaping the counter of an upper and of roughing of that upper and an outer sole, prior to their assembly, be classified as ‘assembly operations’ or ‘working operations for completion into the finished state’, within the meaning of point VII of the Explanatory Notes to General Rule 2(a) on the Interpretation of the Harmonised System?

---
No. 43252.

#### Protests 962879-G, etc., of Eclipse Import Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

From the record it was found that certain items consist of spring daggers similar to those involved in Abstract 37637. They were therefore held dutiable at 45 percent under paragraph 397. Cigarette whistles in chief value of bamboo similar to those the subject of Abstract 39509 were held dutiable at 45 percent under paragraph 409.
<PAGE>
                                                                 Exhibit 3.64
                            CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT

                                       OF

                          CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION

      PJS PUBLICATIONS, INC., a corporation organized and existing under and by
virtue of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware (the
"Corporation"),

      DOES HEREBY CERTIFY:

      FIRST: That the Board of Directors of the Corporation duly adopted
resolutions setting forth and declaring advisable a proposed amendment to the
Certificate of Incorporation of said Corporation:

            RESOLVED, that the Certificate of Incorporation of this Corporation
            be amended by changing the First Article so that, as amended, said
            Article shall be and read as follows: "The name of the Corporation
            is PRIMEDIA Special Interest Publications Inc.".

      SECOND: That by written consent, filed with the minutes of the
Corporation, the sole stockholder approved said amendment in accordance with the
provisions of Section 228 of the General Corporation Law of the State of
Delaware.

      THIRD: That the aforesaid amendment to the Corporation's Certificate of
Incorporation was duly adopted in accordance with the applicable provisions of
Section 242 and Section 228 of the General Corporation Law of the State of
Delaware.

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, said PJS Publications, Inc. has caused this
Certificate to be executed by Beverly Chell its authorized officer, on this 14th
day of November, 1997.


                                           By
                                             Name: Beverly C. Chell
                                             Title: Vice Chairman & Secretary
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 86 (Thursday, May 3, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 26254]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-10856]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting Notice

TIME AND DATE: Wednesday, May 9, 2012; 10 a.m.-11 a.m.

PLACE:  Hearing Room 420, Bethesda Towers, 4330 East West Highway, 
Bethesda, Maryland.

STATUS: Closed to the public.

Matter To Be Considered

Compliance Status Report

    The Commission staff will brief the Commission on the status of 
compliance matters.
    For a recorded message containing the latest agenda information, 
call (301) 504-7948.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Todd A. Stevenson, Office of the 
Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West 
Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, (301) 504-7923.

    Dated: May 1, 2012.
Todd A. Stevenson,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-10856 Filed 5-1-12; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
```
No. 96-1177.

No. 96-1178.

#### In re Constant; and In re Constant.

Petitions for writs of mandamus denied.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

MARLON MIGUEL BROWN

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 19

- 2592

[ October 31, 2019 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for

the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Okeechobee County ; Michael C. Heisey

, Judge; L.T. Case No. 472006CF000584A

.

Marlon M. Brown, Okeechobee, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

C IKLIN

, C ONNER and K LINGENSMITH

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Exhibit 23


                    Consent of Independent Public Accountants


        As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the
   incorporation by reference of our reports dated February 7, 1996 (except
   with respect to the matters discussed in Note 15 as to which the date is
   February 9, 1996), included in or incorporated by reference into Thermedics
   Inc.'s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 30, 1995, and
   into the Company's previously filed Registration Statement No. 2-93746 on
   Form S-8, Registration Statement No. 33-00183 on Form S-8, Registration
   Statement No. 2-93747 on Form S-8, Registration Statement No. 33-8992 on
   Form S-8, Registration Statement No. 33-31621 on Form S-8, Registration
   Statement No. 33-9215 on Form S-8, Registration Statement No. 33-43707 on
   Form S-3, Registration Statement No. 33-40866 on Form S-3, Registration
   Statement No. 33-64070 on Form S-8, Registration Statement No. 33-86972 on
   Form S-8, Registration Statement No. 33-86974 on Form S-8 and Registration
   Statement No. 033-65279 on Form S-8.



                                           Arthur Andersen LLP

   Boston, Massachusetts
   March 8, 1996
No. 96-5674.

#### Tobias *v.*Cain, Warden.

C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 147 (Thursday, July 31, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 41127]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-20117]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Maritime Administration
[Docket No. M-038]


Information Collection Available for Public Comments and 
Recommendations

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this 
notice announces the Maritime Administration's (MARAD's) intentions to 
request extension of approval for three years of a currently approved 
information collection.

DATES: Comments should be submitted on or before September 29, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erhard W. Koehler, Division of Ship 
Maintenance and Repair, Maritime Administration, MAR-611, Room 2119, 
400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-2631 
or FAX 202-366-3954. Copies of this collection can also be obtained 
from that office.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title of Collection: Maintenance and Repair Cumulative Summary.
    Type of Request: Extension of currently approved information 
collection.
    OMB Control Number: 2133-0007.
    Form Number: MA-140.
    Expiration Date of Approval: March 31, 1998.
    Summary of Collection of Information: The collection consists of 
form MA-140 to which are attached invoices and other supporting 
documents for expenses claimed for subsidy. Subidized operators submit 
form MA-140 to the appropriate MARAD region office for review within 60 
days of the termination of a subsidized voyage.
    Need and Use of the Information: The collected information is 
necessary to perform the reviews required in order to permit payment of 
Maintenance and Repair subsidy.
    Description of Respondents: Subsidized ship operators must submit 
the necessary paperwork to determine qualification for subsidy.
    Annual Responses: 100.
    Annual Burden: 1200 hours.
    Comments: Send all comments regarding this information collection 
to Joel C. Richard, Department of Transportation, Maritime 
Administration, MAR-120, Room 7210, 400 Seventh Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20590. Send comments regarding whether this information 
collection is necessary for proper performance of the function of the 
agency and will have practical utility, accuracy of the burden 
estimates, ways to minimize this burden, and ways to enhance quality, 
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.

    By Order of the Maritime Administrator.

    Dated: July 25, 1997.
Joel C. Richard,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-20117 Filed 7-30-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-81-P
(Reap. Dec. 9929)

#### Stockheimer & Harder *v.*United States

Entry No. 753760, etc.

(Decided March 1, 1961)

Plaintiff not represented by counsel.

*William H. OrricJc, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

LawreNCe, Judge:

When the appeals for a reappraisement enumerated in the schedule, attached to and made part of this decision, were called for hearing, there was no appearance on behalf of plaintiff.

An examination of the official record discloses no reason for disturbing the presumptively correct value for the merchandise found by the appraiser.

I, therefore, find and hold the proper dutiable value of the merchandise covered by said appeals to be the value found by the appraiser.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
# C_2013101EN.01000902.xml

| 6.4.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 101/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.4.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 101/9

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 2 January 2013 — Agentur für Arbeit Krefeld — Familienkasse v Susanne Fassbender-Firman

(Case C-4/13)

2013/C 101/20

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Agentur für Arbeit Krefeld — Familienkasse

Appellant:

Respondent: Susanne Fassbender-Firman

Respondent:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Should Article 76(2) of Regulation No 1408/71 (1) be interpreted to the effect that the competent institution of the Member State of employment enjoys discretion in applying Article 76(1) of Regulation No 1408/71 if an application for benefits is not made in the Member State of residence of the members of the family? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Should Article 76(2) of Regulation No 1408/71 (1) be interpreted to the effect that the competent institution of the Member State of employment enjoys discretion in applying Article 76(1) of Regulation No 1408/71 if an application for benefits is not made in the Member State of residence of the members of the family?

1

| 2. | If the first question is answered in the affirmative: on the basis of which discretionary considerations may the institution competent for family benefits in the Member State of employment apply Article 76(1) of Regulation No 1408/71 as if benefits had been granted in the Member State of residence of the members of the family? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the first question is answered in the affirmative: on the basis of which discretionary considerations may the institution competent for family benefits in the Member State of employment apply Article 76(1) of Regulation No 1408/71 as if benefits had been granted in the Member State of residence of the members of the family?

| 3. | If the first question is answered in the affirmative: To what extent is the discretionary decision by the competent institution subject to judicial review? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the first question is answered in the affirmative: To what extent is the discretionary decision by the competent institution subject to judicial review?

---

(1)  Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community, OJ 1971 L 149, p. 2; Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996 amending and updating Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community and Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71, OJ 1997 L 28, p. 1.

1

---
No. 74-6005.

#### Mudd *v.*Alabama.

Sup. Ct. Ala. Certiorari denied.