alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2013063EN.01001302.xml

| 2.3.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/13

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de Cassation (France) lodged on 2 January 2013 — Cartier Parfums Lunettes SAS and Axa Corporate Solutions Assurances SA v Ziegler France SA, Montgomery Transport SARL, Inko Trade SRO, Jaroslave Mateja, Groupama Transport

(Case C-1/13)

2013/C 63/22

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Cour de Cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Cartier Parfums Lunettes SAS and Axa Corporate Solutions Assurances SA

Applicants:

Defendants: Ziegler France SA, Montgomery Transport SARL, Inko Trade SRO, Jaroslave Mateja, Groupama Transport

Defendants:

Question referred

Question referred

Must Article 27(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (1) be interpreted as meaning that the jurisdiction of the court first seised is established, if neither party has claimed that it lacks jurisdiction or if the court has accepted its jurisdiction by a decision which is irrevocable for any reason whatsoever, including the exhaustion of legal remedies?

1

---

(1)  OJ 2001, L 12, p. 1.

1

---
Exhibit 12.2

RULE 13a-14(a) CERTIFICATION

I, Kin Shek Leung, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Global-Tech Appliances Inc.;

2. Based on
my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with
respect to the period covered by this report; and

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report,
fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report.

4. The companys other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the company and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) [paragraph omitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-8238 and 33-8545];

(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the companys disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;

(d) Disclosed in this annual report any change in the companys internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the companys internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The companys other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the companys auditors and the audit committee of the companys board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the companys ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the companys internal control over financial reporting.

Date: September 29, 2006



By:

/s/    Kin Shek LeungKin Shek Leung Acting Chief
Financial Officer
# C_2014184EN.01002401.xml

| 16.6.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 184/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.6.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 184/24

---

Order of the President of the Court of 20 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia — Romania) — Claudiu Roşu v Direcţia Generală a Finanţelor Publice a Judeţului Sibiu — Activitatea de Inspecţie Fiscală

(Case C-312/13) (1)

1

2014/C 184/37

Language of the case: Romanian

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

---

(1)  OJ C 226, 3.8.3013.

1

---
Before the Second Division,

August 16, 1938

No. 39221.

#### Protests 630263-G, etc., of Jordan Marsh Co. (Boston).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

On the record presented it was found that the merchandise consists of outerwear in chief value of wool similar to that involved in Abstract 36548. The claim under paragraph 1114 was therefore sustained.
|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              |   | 2010 |   |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|------|--------|
| Annual      cash      retainer                                                                                      |   | $    | 35,000 |   |   |   |
| Committee      chair additional      retainer                                                                       |   | $    | 6,000  | (1) |  |   |
| Lead      independent director      retainer                                                                        |   | $    | 10,000 |   |   |   |
| Stock      award                                                                                                    |   | $    | 32,400 | (2) |   |   |
| Board      attendance fee (in person or telephonic)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               |   | $    | 2,000  |   | per      meeting |   |
| Committee      attendance fee (in person or telephonic)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           |   | $    | 1,000  |   | per      meeting | (3)  |

----

----
**FULLER,
        TUBB, POMEROY & STOKES**
 A
        PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
 ATTORNEYS
        AT LAW
 201
        ROBERT S. KERR AVENUE, SUITE 1000
 OKLAHOMA
        CITY, OK 73102
 G.
                  M. FULLER(1920-1999)
              TELEPHONE
                  405-235-2575JERRY
                  TUBB
              FACSIMILE
                  405-232-8384DAVID
                  POMEROYTERRY
                  STOKES_____OF
                  COUNSEL:MICHAEL
                  A. BICKFORDTHOMAS
                  J. KENANROLAND
                  TAGUEDAN
                  M. PETERS
 
 November
        14, 2005
 
  Keith
        Parker, Chairman-CEO
 Summit
        Environmental Corporation, Inc.
 133
        East
        Tyler Street
 Longview,
        TX 75601
 
 Re:  Summit
        Environmental Corporation, Inc.
 
 Dear
        Mr.
        Parker:
 
 The
        undersigned is named in the Form SB-2 Registration Statement of Summit
        Environmental Corporation, Inc. (the "Company"), a Texas corporation, which
        registration statement is to be filed with the Securities and Exchange
        Commission in connection with the registration of shares of Common Stock
        of the
        Company to be offered for sale by certain selling security holders. The capacity
        in which the undersigned is named in such SB-2 Registration Statement is
        that of
        counsel to the Company and as a person who has given an opinion on the validity
        of the securities being registered and upon other legal matters concerning
        the
        registration or offering of the securities described therein.
 
 The
        undersigned hereby consents to being named in such SB-2 Registration Statement
        in the capacity therein described.
 
 Sincerely,*/s/
                  Thomas J. Kenan*Thomas
                  J. Kenan
   Exhibit
            23.3
# C_2012331EN.01003302.xml

| 27.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/33

---

Action brought on 3 September 2012 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-91/12)

(2012/C 331/63)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: D. Abreu Caldas, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, E. Marchal and S. Orlandi, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Action for annulment of the decision to calculate the entitlement to pension rights acquired before the entry into service on the basis of the general implementing provisions for Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of 3 March 2011.

Form of order sought

| — | annul the decision to calculate the entitlement to pension rights acquired before the entry into service on the basis of the general implementing provisions for Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of 3 March 2011; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision to calculate the entitlement to pension rights acquired before the entry into service on the basis of the general implementing provisions for Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of 3 March 2011;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

---
Case No. 14,072.

#### [Ex parte TOCHMAN.

[1 Hayw. & H. 268.] 2

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

May 22, 1847.

1‘hactice at Law — Original Papers — Leave to W ithoraw— Copies.

. The general rule that the original papers filed in a suit shall not be withdrawn without leaving attested copies does not apply to a case in which there are no parties litigant before the court, and the court sees no use in retaining them.

At law.

Motion to withdraw papers filed with his answer to. Mr. Bradley’s information.

On the 19th of May. 1847, after THE COURT had given its opinion in regard to the information given by Mr. Bradley to the court containing certain charges against Mr. [Gaspard] Tochman, but not asking for any specific remedy or proceeding against him, Mr. Tochman moved for leave to withdraw tl>e papers which he had filed with and referred to in his answer to those charges, THE COURT having decided that the case did not in his opinion call for the exercise of its summary jurisdiction. As the information did not ask for any specific remedy, but left the subject entirely to the discretion of the court, it seems to be a question between Mr. Tochman and the court only whether the court shall permit the papers filed by him *1350to be withdrawn without leaving' attested copies. There being no parties litigant before tiie court, the general rule, that the original papers filed in a suit shall not be withdrawn without leaving attested copies, does not seem to be applicable to the present case. There is no person who can claim any right to have the papers retained, and we can see no use in retaining them. If, however, any person desires to have copies of any of them before they are withdrawn, the court will permit such copies to be taken at the cost of the persons requiring the same, and for that purpose the papers will remain as they are until the 29th day of this month, on or after which day the papers filed by Hr. Tochman with his answer as aforesaid may be withdrawn by him.

By order of THE COURT.
# C_2013086EN.01001301.xml

| 23.3.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.3.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/13

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema di Cassazione (Italy) lodged on 24 January 2013 — ASS.I.CA. and Kraft Foods Italia SpA v Associazioni fra produttori per la tutela del ‘Salame Felino’ and Others

(Case C-35/13)

2013/C 86/21

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Corte Suprema di Cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: ASS.I.CA. — Associazione Industriali delle Carni, Kraft Foods Italia SpA

Appellants:

Respondents: Associazioni fra produttori per la tutela del ‘Salame Felino’ and Others

Respondents:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Should Article 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 (1) be interpreted as precluding a producers’ association from being able to claim the right exclusively to use, within the [European Union], a designation of geographical origin used within a Member State to designate a specific type of salami sausage, without having first obtained a legally binding measure from that Member State establishing the boundaries of the geographical area of production, the rules and regulations governing production, and any requirements which producers may have to satisfy in order to be entitled to use that designation? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Should Article 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 (1) be interpreted as precluding a producers’ association from being able to claim the right exclusively to use, within the [European Union], a designation of geographical origin used within a Member State to designate a specific type of salami sausage, without having first obtained a legally binding measure from that Member State establishing the boundaries of the geographical area of production, the rules and regulations governing production, and any requirements which producers may have to satisfy in order to be entitled to use that designation?

1

| 2. | In the light of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92, which set of rules should be applied within the [European Union] market and also within the market of a Member State to a geographical designation which has not obtained the registration referred to in that regulation? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In the light of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92, which set of rules should be applied within the [European Union] market and also within the market of a Member State to a geographical designation which has not obtained the registration referred to in that regulation?

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ 1992 L 208, p. 1).

1

---
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-30464 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ERICK FRANCISCO SAMAYOA-GONZALES, also known as Eric Samayoa,

Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 00-CV-2642 (98-CR-14-ALL)

-------------------- November 2, 2001

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Defendant-Appellant Erick Francisco Samayoa-Gonzales

(“Samayoa”), federal prisoner # 258997-034, appeals the district

court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate, set aside,

or correct sentence. Samayoa argues that his trial attorney was

ineffective at sentencing because counsel failed to object to the

16-level increase of Samayoa’s offense level pursuant to 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(b)(2) and U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2. Samayoa contends that a2

juvenile delinquency adjudic ation in Louisiana is not a

“conviction” under those enhancement provisions.

To prev ail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel,

Samayoa must show that: (1) his counsel’s performance was deficient

in that it fell below an objective standard of reasonableness; and

(2) counsel’s deficient performance prejudiced Samayoa’s defense.

Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 689-94 (1984). These

elements are conjunctive: A failure to establish either deficient

performance or prejudice defeats the claim. Id. at 697.

At the time of Samayoa’s sentencing, there was no controlling

authority to support the argument that under Louisiana law a

juvenile adjudication of delinquency was not a conviction for

purposes of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2. Therefore,

the attorney’s failure to object to the 16 level enhancement was

not unreasonable and thus did not constitute deficient performance.

See United States v. Williamson

, 183 F.3d 458 (5th Cir. 1999).

Samayoa’s inability to meet the cause prong precludes his ability

to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance; we need not

address the prejudice prong.

AFFIRMED.
#### Wayne PAYTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 97-4416.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Oct. 12, 1998.

Wayne Payton, Pro Se, for Appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General; Trisha E. Meggs, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant alleges in a motion filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 that his trial counsel affirmatively misinformed him as to the availability of a voluntary intoxication defense. The trial court summarily denied the motion. *Morris v. State,*670 So.2d 1151 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996), however, mandates reversal as the record materials attached to the trial court’s order do not conclusively demonstrate that the appellant is not entitled to relief. Therefore, we remand so that the trial court can conduct an evidentiary hearing as to the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to pursue a defense of voluntary intoxication. Alternatively, if there be such, the trial court may attach other portions of the already existing trial court record which conclusively refute appellant’s claim, to a new order of summary denial. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(a); *Toler v. State,*493 So.2d 489 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986).

MINER, ALLEN and KAHN, JJ., concur.
MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-10-00061-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF J.J.L., J.M.L., L.M.E., G.X.E., Jr., and M.A.E.

From the 57th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2009-PA-00463

Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Delivered and Filed: February 9, 2011

AFFIRMED

This is an appeal from the trial court’s termination of appellant’s parental rights. See

TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 161.001(1)(D), (E), (N), (O), (2) (Vernon 2002). After the record from 

the trial on the merits was filed, appellant’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief containing a 

professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating that there are no arguable grounds to be 

advanced. Counsel concludes that the appeal is without merit. The brief meets the requirements 

of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). See In re R.R., No. 04-03-00096-CV, 2003 WL 

21157944, at * 4 (Tex. App.—San Antonio May 21, 2003, no pet.) (applying Anders procedure 

in appeal from termination of parental rights). Counsel provided appellant with a copy of the 
04-10-00061-CV

- 2 -

brief. Appellant was informed of her right to review the record and advised of her right to file a 

pro se brief. Appellant has not filed a brief.

After reviewing the record, we agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The 

judgment of the trial court is affirmed. We GRANT counsel’s motion to withdraw. Nichols v. 

State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 86 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 

176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.). 

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice
Opinion issued November 24, 2020

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-20-00711-CV

———————————

IN RE COMMITMENT JOHN PALMER, Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Prohibition

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator, John William Palmer, acting pro se but represented by counsel in 

the court below, has filed a petition for writ of prohibition.

1

In the petition, he 

complains that the trial court violated Texas Code of Criminal Procedure art. 2.01

and 18 U.S.C. §§ 4241, 1001, and 4. 

1 The underlying case is State of Texas v. John Palmer, cause number 1584989, 

pending in the 183rd District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Mark 

Kent Ellis presiding.
2

We deny relator’s petition for writ of prohibition. All pending motions are 

denied as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Lloyd and Kelly.
# Flight Session Report

Date: Location: Session #:

Weather:

Pilot: Spotter:

CamOp: Aircraft:

Completed skipped or NA

Ground Check, Environment Ground Check, Batteries

Check airspace class:

Check AO NO TAMS

Contact A TC (if neccessary)

Orient to AO (N,S,E,W), “measuring sticks”

Scan for RF interference

Check weather forecast Main aircraft batteries balanced and charged

Transmitter batteries balanced and charged

FPV receiver/montor(s) balanced and charged

Ground station batteries charged

Camera batteries charged

Scout and note obstructions

Select and prep LZ, identify bailout LZ(s)

Ground Check, Aircraft

All screws/bolts are tight

Batteries are securely attached

Antennas are attached and secure

CC W, CW props on CCW,CW motors

Props are secure

Props are not chipped/damaged

Check blades, arms, frame for damage Wiring tight (nothing loose)

No excessive flexing of motors or booms

Booms/motors will not twist

Center of gravity is correct

Complete power on checklist for items below

Transmitter Range Check

Verify failsafe RTH height is higher than

local obstructions

Takeoff Procedure Landing Procedure

• Announce: "Clear prop"

• Start motors

• Advance throttle to low power (much less than take off level)

• Verify left/right and forward/back stick movement engages

the proper motors

• Announce: " T akin g o f f"

• Advance throttle to ascend to above head level

• Listen for unusual rattles, vibrations

• Verify autopilot lights are communicating correct mode and

status

• Test pitch, roll, and yaw

• Raise landing gear

• PAY ATTENTION TO TELEMETRY (esp. battery level) • Check landing area clear

• Announce: "Returning to land"

• Check for obstacles in flight path

• Lower landing gear

• Orient craft facing away from pilot

• T ouchdown

, Power down , Motor stopPowerOn
No. 49516.

#### Protest 109029-K of Henry Pollak, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

The record showed that certain of the hats are similar to those involved in *United States*v. *Armand Schwab*(30 C. C. P. A. 72, C. A. D. 218) which record was incorporated herein. In accordance therewith the protest was sustained as to this item.