alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2013114EN.01002501.xml

| 20.4.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 114/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.4.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 114/25

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim (Germany) lodged on 8 February 2013 — Markus Weiss v Condor Flugdienst GmbH

(Case C-68/13)

2013/C 114/39

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Markus Weiss

Applicant:

Defendant: Condor Flugdienst GmbH

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Must the extraordinary circumstance within the meaning of Article 5(3) of the regulation (1) relate directly to the booked flight? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must the extraordinary circumstance within the meaning of Article 5(3) of the regulation (1) relate directly to the booked flight?

1

| 2. | If the first question is to be answered in the negative, how many earlier flights involving the aircraft to be used in the scheduled flight are relevant to the existence of an extraordinary circumstance? Is there a time limit to the consideration of extraordinary circumstances which occur during earlier flights? If so, how is that time limit to be calculated? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the first question is to be answered in the negative, how many earlier flights involving the aircraft to be used in the scheduled flight are relevant to the existence of an extraordinary circumstance? Is there a time limit to the consideration of extraordinary circumstances which occur during earlier flights? If so, how is that time limit to be calculated?

| 3. | If extraordinary circumstances which occur during earlier flights are also relevant to a later flight, must the reasonable measures to be taken by the operating air carrier, in accordance with Article 5(3) of the regulation, relate only to preventing the extraordinary circumstance or also to avoiding a long delay? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If extraordinary circumstances which occur during earlier flights are also relevant to a later flight, must the reasonable measures to be taken by the operating air carrier, in accordance with Article 5(3) of the regulation, relate only to preventing the extraordinary circumstance or also to avoiding a long delay?

---

(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

---
#### Vernon STROUD, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. 73799.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.

Oct. 6, 1998.

Nancy L. Vincent, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Meghan J. Stephens, Jefferson City, for respondent.

MOONEY, Judge.

Vernon Stroud (Movant) appeals from the judgment of the motion court dismissing his Rule 29.15 motion without prejudice for failure to prosecute. We reverse and remand.

After trial, a jury convicted Movant of three counts of sodomy, section 566.060, RSMo 1986, and one count of first degree sexual abuse, section 566.100. Movant filed a notice of appeal, but his direct appeal was dismissed on September 1, 1994. Movant filed a motion to recall the mandate, which this court granted on May 23, 1996, reinstating Movant’s direct appeal. This court affirmed Movant’s conviction on direct appeal. *State v. Stroud,*954 S.W.2d 30 (Mo.App. E.D.1997).

After his mandate was recalled, Movant filed a *pro se*Rule 29.15 motion on July 8, 1996. Movant included in his motion an *in forma pauperis*affidavit, swearing he was indigent. The court never appointed counsel to represent Movant. No further action was *786ever taken until September 10, 1997, when the court entered a judgment of dismissal, ordering the case dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. Movant appeals from this judgment. This court granted Movant leave to file his notice of appeal out of time.

On appeal, Movant contends the motion court clearly erred in dismissing his 29.15 motion without prejudice for failure to prosecute without appointing counsel to represent him as required by Rule 29.15(e)(1995).1 The State agrees the case should be remanded for the appointment of post-conviction counsel.

As a preliminary matter, we must first address the question of whether this court has jurisdiction to consider this appeal. Movant appeals from a dismissal without prejudice. Generally, no appeal can be taken from a dismissal without prejudice. However, we may entertain Movant’s motion because the court’s action of dismissing the case effectively terminated Movant’s litigation. *Nolan v. State,*959 S.W.2d 939, 940 (Mo.App. E.D.1998).

Rule 29.15(e)(1995) provides: “When an indigent movant files a pro se motion, the court *shall*cause counsel to be appointed for the movant.” (Emphasis added). Here, although Movant filed an affidavit of indigency, the court never appointed counsel to represent him. Furthermore, the court dismissed Movant’s 29.15 motion without ever appointing counsel. The court’s failure to appoint counsel before dismissing Movant’s motion is clearly erroneous. *See, Fields v. State,*572 S.W.2d 477, 483 (Mo. banc 1978); *State v. Wendleton,*936 S.W.2d 120, 124 (Mo.App. S.D.1996).

The judgment dismissing Movant’s 29.15 motion is reversed and the cause is remanded for appointment of counsel and for further proceedings under Rule 29.15.

SIMON, P.J., and CRANE, J., concur.

1

. Movant was sentenced prior to January 1, 1996. Therefore, the 1995 version of Rule 29.15 is applicable to his case. *See,*Rule 29.15(m)(1998).
No. 55623.

#### American Cyanamid Company and W. R. Zanes & Company *v.*United States,

protests 151971-K and 161638-K (Galveston).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

The protests were dismissed.
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2090 

To amend the Indian Law Enforcement Reform Act to extend the period 

of time provided to the Indian Law and Order Commission to produce 

a required report, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 9, 2012 

Mr. AKAKA (for himself, Mr. BARRASSO, Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota, Ms. 

MURKOWSKI, Mr. TESTER, Mr. BAUCUS, Mr. FRANKEN, Ms. CANTWELL, 

Mr. HOEVEN, Mrs. MURRAY, and Mr. UDALL of New Mexico) introduced 

the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee 

on Indian Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend the Indian Law Enforcement Reform Act to extend the period of time provided to the Indian Law 

and Order Commission to produce a required report, 

and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. REPORT OF INDIAN LAW AND ORDER COMMIS4 SION. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 15(f) of the Indian Law 

6 Enforcement Reform Act (25 U.S.C. 2812(f)) is amended 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2090 IS

1 in the matter preceding paragraph (1) by striking ‘‘2 

2 years’’ and inserting ‘‘3 years’’. 

3 (b) TECHNICAL AMENDMENT.—Section 15(e) of the 

4 Indian Law Enforcement Reform Act (25 U.S.C. 2812(e)) 

5 is amended in the matter preceding paragraph (1) by 

6 striking ‘‘paragraph (1)’’ and inserting ‘‘subsection (d)’’. 

Æ 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Onsite Sewage Programs Statistical Data - Bureau of Onsite Sewage Programs

http://www.doh.state.fl.us/environment/ostds/statistics/ostdsstatistics.htm [11/1/2010 12:01:59 PM] Print This Page

EH Home About Us Communities Radiation Medicine Water Sewage Programs Newsroom Data Bureau Of Onsite Sewage > Statistics > OSTDS Statistical Data 

### Onsite Sewage Programs Statistical Data Onsite Sewage Treatment and Disposal Systems Statistical Data (The following documents are less than 20 kb in size and open in a new window)
OSTDS New Installations

OSTDS Repairs *Note: The above materials are in the Portable Document Format (PDF). You may need to download the free Adobe Acrobat Reader to view the files.

Back To Top Home : About Us : Community EH : Radiation : Medicine : Water : Sewage : Programs : Newsroom Privacy Statement * Disclaimer Accessibility Information * Email Advisory
# C_2012243EN.01002701.xml

| 11.8.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 243/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.8.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 243/27

---

Action brought on 12 June 2012 — Central Bank of Iran v Council

(Case T-262/12)

2012/C 243/48

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Central Bank of Iran (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: M. Lester, Barrister)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul Council Decision 2012/35/CFSP of 23 January 2012 (1) and Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 (2), in so far as the measures adopted through such legal acts apply to the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Council Decision 2012/35/CFSP of 23 January 2012 (1) and Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 (2), in so far as the measures adopted through such legal acts apply to the applicant;

1

2

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant 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 four pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the defendant manifestly erred in considering that any of the criteria for listing in Council Decision 2012/35/CFSP and Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 were fulfilled. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the defendant manifestly erred in considering that any of the criteria for listing in Council Decision 2012/35/CFSP and Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 were fulfilled.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to give adequate or sufficient reasons for including the applicant in the list of persons and entities to which the restrictive measures apply. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to give adequate or sufficient reasons for including the applicant in the list of persons and entities to which the restrictive measures apply.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to safeguard the applicant’s rights of defence and to effective judicial review. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to safeguard the applicant’s rights of defence and to effective judicial review.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed, without justification or proportion, the applicant’s fundamental rights, including its rights to protection of its property and reputation. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed, without justification or proportion, the applicant’s fundamental rights, including its rights to protection of its property and reputation.

---

(1)  Council Decision 2012/35/CFSP of 23 January 2012 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 19, p. 22)

1

(2)  Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1)

2

---
# C_2012109EN.01001701.xml

| 14.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/17

---

Action brought on 20 January 2012 — Vardar v OHIM — Joker (pingulina)

(Case T-32/12)

2012/C 109/38

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Muslahadin Vardar (Löhne, Germany) (represented by: I. Höfener and M. Boden, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Joker, Inc. (Allen, United States)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 November 2011 in case R 475/2011-4, and alter it so that the opposition is rejected and the applicant’s application for registration is granted; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 November 2011 in case R 475/2011-4, and alter it so that the opposition is rejected and the applicant’s application for registration is granted; and

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘pingulina’, in orange, violet, blue, green, yellow and black, for goods in classes 20, 24 and 25 — Community trade mark application No 8402992

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The opposition was based inter alia upon the International trade mark registration No 537386A of the figurative mark ‘PINGU’, in black and white, for goods inter alia in classes 20, 24 and 25

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition in its entirety and rejected the CTM application

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal wrongly concluded that there was a likelihood of confusion between the mark applied for and the earlier marks.

Pleas in law:

---
No. 74-5987.

#### Moore *v.*California.

Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER>    1
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-30-1998             NOV-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1998             NOV-30-1997
<CASH>                                       5,242,289               3,649,774
<SECURITIES>                                 3,805,705               3,800,688
<RECEIVABLES>                                9,196,185               4,595,598
<ALLOWANCES>                                (1,318,185)             (  664,325)
<INVENTORY>                                  9,059,456               6,014,672
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            20,477,950              16,471,579
<PP&E>                                       3,275,525               2,470,524
<DEPRECIATION>                              (2,162,987)             (1,820,855)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              24,010,136              19,224,291
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        8,410,687               5,139,769
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                        72,671                  72,136
<OTHER-SE>                                  15,518,980              14,030,355
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                24,010,136              19,224,291
<SALES>                                     41,083,974              37,708,922
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            41,402,270              38,002,875
<CGS>                                       15,321,576              14,460,364
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               38,570,096              34,730,052
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               201,630                ( 17,779)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              22,894                   5,888
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,832,174               3,272,823
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,164,201               1,241,329
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,660,375               2,031,494
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,660,375               2,031,494
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .23                     .28
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .21                     .25
        

</TABLE>
(Reap. Dec. 9942)

#### James G. Wiley Yale Sales & Co. v. United States

Entry No. DE-27329, etc.

(Decided March 7, 1961)

*Lawrence & Tuttle (Edward N. Glad*of counsel) for the plaintiffs.

*'William H. Or rielo, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General *(Richard E. FitzGiblxm,*trial attorney), for the defendant.

Johnson, Judge:

When this appeal for reappraisement was called for trial, it was submitted upon the following stipulation of counsel for the respective parties:

> Me. Glad : If it please the Court, this appeal is abandoned except for entry number 27329, and as to that entry the appeal is abandoned except for item number 300 R 5.

> I offer to stipulate that during the period of exportation of this particular item there was no foreign, export or United States value for such or similar merchandise as defined by Section 402.

> Mb. EitzGibbon : That is agreed.

> Mb. Glad : I offer to stipulate that the cost of production, as defined under Section 402, for this particular item is represented by the sum of $3.30, less 33% per cent.

> *631Mr. FitzGibbon : That is agreed to.

On the agreed facts, I find that cost of production, as that value is defined in section 402(f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, is the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise described on the invoice covered by entry No. 27329 as item number 300 R 5 and that such value is the sum of $3.30, less 33% per centum.

As to all other entries and items of merchandise, the appeal, having been abandoned, is dismissed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Exhibit 32.2

Certification of Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350

(as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

In connection with the Annual Report of Time Warner Telecom Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2007 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report), I, Mark A. Peters, Executive Vice President 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) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
Section 78m or 78o(d)); and

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



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Mark A. Peters     
|Name: Mark A. Peters   
|                       
|Date: February 28, 2008
```
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 147 (Thursday, July 31, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 41002]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-20107]

[[Page 41002]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

29 CFR Part 1910

[Docket No. S-012-B]

Review of the Control of Hazardous Energy Sources (Lockout/
Tagout) Standard

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department 
of Labor.

ACTION: Extension of time for filing public comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is 
conducting a review of the Control of Hazardous Energy Sources 
(Lockout/Tagout) standard in order to determine, consistent with 
Executive Order 12866 on Regulatory Planning and Review and section 610 
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, whether this standard should be 
maintained without change, rescinded, or modified in order to make it 
more effective or less burdensome, consistent with the objectives of 
the Occupational Safety and Health Act. The review will consider the 
application of Executive Order 12866 and the directive of the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act to achieve statutory goals with as little 
economic impact as possible on small employers.
    OSHA published a Federal Register notice on May 29, 1997 requesting 
public comments concerning OSHA's review of the Lockout/Tagout standard 
(29 CFR 1910.147) and announcing a public meeting on June 30, 1997 (62 
FR 29089, May 29, 1997). In the Federal Register notice announcing the 
public meeting, OSHA stated that it would accept written comments 
through August 1, 1997. In response to requests from persons commenting 
at the public meeting held on June 30, 1997, OSHA has granted a one 
week extension of the time period to file written comments.

DATES: Written comments will be accepted through August 8, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to the Docket Officer, 
Docket S-012-B, OSHA Docket Office, Room N2625, 200 Constitution 
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210, Telephone (202) 219-7894.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Dorris, Office of Regulatory 
Analysis, Directorate of Policy, Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration, Room N3627, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 
DC 20210, Telephone (202) 219-4690, extension 134, Fax (202) 219-4383.

    Authority: This document was prepared under the direction of 
Gregory R. Watchman, Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for 
Occupational Safety and Health, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20210.

    Signed at Washington, D.C., this 25th day of July, 1997.
Gregory R. Watchman,
Acting Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-20107 Filed 7-30-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
```
Exhibit 23.1

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM



         We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Forms S-8 (No. 333-66620), (No. 333-66123), (No. 333-66121), (No.
333-66119) and (No. 033-63865),and in Amendment No.1 to the registration
statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-127155), of ATC Healthcare, Inc. and Subsidiaries
of our report dated April 28, 2006, relating to the February 28, 2006 financial
statements and financial statement schedule, which appears in this Form 10-K.



Goldstein Golub Kessler LLP
New York, New York
May 26, 2006