alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2014175EN.01001401.xml

| 10.6.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 175/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.6.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 175/14

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 April 2014 — Acino AG v European Commission

(Case C-269/13 P) (1)

1

((Appeal - Medicinal products for human use - Suspension of the marketing and the withdrawal of certain consignments of medicinal products containing the active ingredient Clopidogrel - Variation of marketing authorisations - Prohibition on marketing - Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 and Directive 2001/83/EC - Precautionary principle - Proportionality - Obligation to state reasons))

2014/C 175/16

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Acino AG (represented by: R. Buchner and E. Burk, Rechtsanwälte)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: M. Šimerdová and B.-R. Killmann, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 March 2013 in Case T-539/10 Acino v Commission, in so far as that Court dismissed an application for annulment of Commission Decisions C (2010) 2203, C (2010) 2205, C (2010) 2210 and C (2010) 2218 of 29 March 2010 and Commission Decisions C (2010) 6430, C (2010) 6432, C (2010) 6434 and C (2010) 6435 of 16 September 2010, relating to the suspension of the marketing of medicinal products for human use containing the active ingredient Clopidogrel manufactured at a certain site, the withdrawal of consignments of those medicinal products from the market, the variation of the marketing authorisations and the prohibition on marketing those medicinal products — Precautionary principle — Proportionality — Obligation to state reasons

Acino

Commission

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal.

| 2. | Orders Acino AG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Acino AG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 215, 27.07.2013.

1

---
Exhibit 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

     I, Patrick D. O'Brien, certify that:

     1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter
ended September 30, 2003 of American Oil & Gas, 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;

     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 registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

     4. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) 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)) 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 registrant, 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) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant'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; and

     c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent
fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual
report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

     5. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant'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 registrant'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 registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.

Date:  May 6, 2004
/s/ Patrick D. O'Brien
-----------------------
Patrick D. O'Brien
Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 32: Rule 13a-14(b) Certification  Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officers of Pingchuan Pharmaceutical, Inc. (the Company) certify that: 1. The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the period  ended September 30, 2006 (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. 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.  November 13, 2006 /s/ Yao Qitai Yao Qitai (Chief Executive Officer)  November 13, 2006 /s/ Zhang Chunman Zhang Chunman (Chief Financial Officer)
ULYSSES BROWN , Appellant ,

v. WALTER A. MCNEIL, SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS , Appellee

. ___________________________/ IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 1D 08

- 3141

Opinion filed August 1 0 , 2017. Ulysses Brown , pro se , Appellant

. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General and Kenneth Steely, General Counsel , Florida Department of Corrections, Tallahassee , for Appellee

.

PER CURIAM.
This Court previously ba rr ed Appellant from pro se filings in this Court concerning convictions and sentences in Duval County Circuit Court c ase n o s
. 1982
CF 06820 and 1982 CF 06845

. We instructed the Clerk of Court “ to reject any future pleadings, petitions, motions, documents, or other filings submitted by Ulysses Brown,2 DC# 089244 ” related to his convictions and sentences un less the filing was signed by a member in good standing of t he Florida Bar. Brown v. McNeil , 22 So

. 3d 741 , 743 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009). Since this p rohibition, the Clerk of Court has received five pro se pleadings from Appellant

. As instructed, the Clerk rejected the filings and each time

wrote Appellant informing him that no action will b e taken

. Our prior opinion warned Appellant that any violation of the prior bar order may subject him to further appropriate sanctions as provided in section 944.279(1), Florida
Statutes. Id. Because Appellant continues to abuse the legal process by submitting pro se filing s in clear violation of this court’s o rder , a certified copy of this opinion shall be provided to the Florida Department of Corrections to be forwarded to the appropriate institution or facility for disciplinary procedures pursuant to the rules of the department as provided in section 944.279, Florida Statutes.
D isciplinary action imposed

. ROBERT S, ROWE, and WINOKUR, JJ., CONCUR.
<PAGE>


EXHIBIT 32.1

                    DIRECT RESPONSE FINANCIAL SERVICES, 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 Quarterly Report of Direct Response Financial Services,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended October 31, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Ted Kozub, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.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; and

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

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Direct Response Financial Services, Inc. and will be retained by
Direct Response Financial Services, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


Date: December 15, 2004

/s/ Ted Kozub
---------------
Ted Kozub
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
#### Johnston et al., Appellants, *v.*McDade et al.

No. 2.

Argued April 27, 1926.

Appeal No. 71, April T., 1926, by Samuel M. Johnston, from judgment of C. P. *381Allegheny County, January T., 1923, in the case of Samuel M. Johnston et al. v. Arch R. McDade et al.

Before Porter, P. J., Henderson, Trexler, Keller, Linn, Gawthrop and Cunningham, JJ.

Affirmed.

July 8, 1926:

Opinion by

Henderson, J.,

This case grows out of the same state of facts from which the action of ¿Samuel M. Johnston arose; the appellant being the father of Samuel M. Johnston. In an opinion this day handed down in the case of Samuel M. Johnston et al. v. Arch. R.. McDade et al., the judgment of the court below was affirmed, and our conclusion in that ease requires the affirmation of the judgment in this ease.

The assignments are overruled and the judgment affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2157 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2157

To ensure that all of Brevard County, Florida, is treated as a HUBZone, 
                        and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 6, 2012

   Mr. Nelson of Florida (for himself and Mr. Rubio) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                  Small Business and Entrepreneurship

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To ensure that all of Brevard County, Florida, is treated as a HUBZone, 
                        and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Shuttle Workforce Revitalization Act 
of 2012''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

    Congress finds the following:
            (1) The termination of the space shuttle program has 
        resulted in significant economic hardship for the region 
        surrounding the Kennedy Space Center.
            (2) The highly skilled space shuttle workforce in Brevard 
        County, Florida, is a unique asset of the United States, the 
        retention of which will facilitate advancements in science and 
        technology.
            (3) The technical capabilities, dedication, and 
        perseverance of the space shuttle workforce will enhance the 
        technological competitiveness of the United States by 
        cultivating and developing the small business community within 
        Brevard County, Florida.
            (4) It is in the national interest to remain globally 
        competitive in the fields of science and technology.

SEC. 3. BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA.

    For purposes of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 631 et seq.), 
Brevard County, Florida, shall be a HUBZone, as defined in section 3(p) 
of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632(p)), until not earlier than 
January 1, 2020.
                                 <all>
```
No. 48212.

Suit 4415.

#### *Textile Design Co., Inc.*v. *United States.*

affirmed March 1, 1943. C. A. D. 232.
Before the Second Division,

November 18, 1942

No. 47733.

#### Protests 13767-K, etc., of A. D. Cohen Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the hats in question are not bleached, dyed, colored, or stained, and not blocked or trimmed, the claim at 25 percent ad valorem under paragraph 1504(b)(1) was sustained, following Abstract 47291.
Exhibit 23.1

                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


We consent to the  incorporation  by reference in  Registration  Statement  Nos.
333-56277,  333-19529,  33-54014,  33-54018,  33-41846,  and  33-15474  of  Azul
Holdings  Inc. on Forms S-8 of our report  dated June 29,  2001,  (which  report
expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory  paragraph relating
to substantial doubt about the Company's ability to continue as a going concern)
appearing in their Annual Report on Form 10-K of Azul Holdings Inc. for the year
ended March 31, 2001.


DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Denver, Colorado
July 16, 2001
#### Alicia Handville, an Infant, et al., Respondents, v County of Oswego et al., Defendants, and Hannibal Central School District et al., Appellants.

[701 NYS2d 925]

—Order affirmed without costs.

All concur except Lawton and Balio, JJ., who dissent and vote to reverse in the following Memorandum.

Lawton and Balio, JJ.

(dissenting). We respectfully dissent. The record establishes that the 17-year-old infant plaintiff sustained injuries while attending a Teen Institute Program at the Syracuse University Minnowbrook Conference Center at Blue Mountain Lake, New York. Defendant Hannibal Central School District (School District) was one of the sponsors of the program. The infant plaintiff applied to participate in the program and was selected by the School District. Between 11:30 p.m. and 12:00 a.m. on November 11, 1995, the infant plaintiff and another student left their cabin to go to the main lodge to join other students for hot chocolate. The infant plaintiff was wearing proper footwear and was carrying a flashlight. She had been told by adult advisors from the School District that the walkways were slippery. The infant plaintiff fell and broke her ankle as she crossed the roadway near the main lodge.

Given those circumstances, the School District did not breach its duty to supervise the infant plaintiff. “The standard of care applicable to a school’s supervision of students is that degree of supervision that a parent of ordinary prudence would undertake in comparable circumstances *(Lawes v Board of Educ.,*16 *987NY2d 302, 305 * * * *Logan v City of New York,*148 AD2d 167; *Thompson v Ange,*83 AD2d 193,196; *Rock v Central Sq. School Dist.,*[113 AD2d 1008])” *(Gattyan v Scarsdale Union Free School Dist. No. 1,*152 AD2d 650, 651). Here, a parent of ordinary prudence would not prohibit a 17 year old wearing proper footwear and carrying a flashlight from going for hot chocolate because of slippery conditions. To hold otherwise makes the School District an insurer for any accidents that occur when it allows its students to go outside in the winter. Consequently, we would reverse the order and grant the motion of the School District and defendant Hannibal Central School District Board of Education for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims against them. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Oswego County, Hurl-butt, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Green, J. P., Lawton, Wisner, Scudder and Balio, JJ.
No. 42060.

#### Protest 698382-G of N. Y. Merchandise Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Sullivan, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel tennis rackets similar to those the subject of *May*v. *United States*(T. D. 47760) and *Woolworth*v. *United States*(T. D. 48573) and beach balls like those passed upon in *United States*v. *Woolworth*(24 C. C. P. A. 338, T. D. 48770) were held dutiable at 30 percent under paragraph 1502 as claimed.
No. 48932.

#### Protest 505954-G of Waldburger & Huber (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

When the case was called for trial the plaintiff failed to appear or offer any evidence in support of the claim made. The case was ordered submitted by the court. An examination of the record failed to disclose any error on the part of the collector. The protest was therefore overruled.
# C_2014102EN.01002903.xml

| 7.4.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 102/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.4.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 102/29

---

Order of the President of the Court of 22 November 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

(Case C-169/13) (1)

1

2014/C 102/43

Language of the case: Polish

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

---

(1)  OJ C 171, 15.6.2013.

1

---
Case No. 9,369.

#### MAYOR AND COMMONALTY v. MOORE et al.

[1 Cranch, C. C. 193.]1

Circuit Court. District of Columbia.

Nov. Term, 1804.

Deeds — Escrow—Condition of Delivery — By Whom Condition Performed.

It is not necessary, to the delivery of a deed as an escrow, that tbe obligee should be privy to its delivery, nor that the thing to be performed, as a condition of the delivery, should be a thing to be done by the obligee.

[Action by the mayor and commonalty against Thomas Moore and his sureties, Charles Simms and Thomas Swann.]

Debt, on an auctioneer’s bond. Plea, 1st, non est factum, and 2d, delivered as an escrow, to be his deed, if also executed by ■William Hodgson and Peter Sherran, who did not execute it. Issue to the 1st plea; special demurrer and joinder to the 2d plea, because, 1st, the plaintiffs were not privy to the delivery as an escrow; 2d, the thing to be performed is to be done by strangers and not by the plaintiffs.

E. J. Lee, for plaintiffs.

The obligee must be privy and consent to the conditional delivery. It does not appear that Cleon Moore, to whom it was delivered as an escrow, was authorized by the plaintiffs to receive it as such. It must be on condition that the plaintiffs do something. Shep. Touch. 13, 57; Vin. Abr. 27. But here the condition was to be performed by strangers.

Mr. Simms. If Cleon Moore had no authority to receive the deed, then it is neither a deed nor an escrow.

THE COURT

overruled the demurrer.

KILTY, Chief Judge, contra.

Thereupon J. Lee moved the court to strike out the judgment, and for leave to withdraw the demurrer, and to file general replications to the pleas, which was granted upon payment of the cost. FITZHUGH, Circuit Judge, doubting whether the demurrer could now be withdrawn.

Upon the trial of the issues. E. J. Lee asked Cleon Moore, the subscribing witness, whether his name was signed by himself, to which he answered in the affirmative, but was not asked as to the delivery of the deed. The attestation was thus: “Sealed and delivered in presence of Cleon Moore.”

Mr. Simms prayed the court to instruct the jury that there was no evidence of the delivery of the deed.

THE COURT gave the instruction. It being no more than proving the handwriting of the subscribing witness, while he was living, and within reach of the process of the court.

Verdict for defendants.
(Reap. Dec. 9941)

#### Morey Machine Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States

Entry No. 941847, etc.

(Decided March 7, 1961)

Plaintiffs not represented by counsel.

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

*630LaweeNCe, Judge:

The records indicate that there was no appear- ■

anee on behalf of plaintiffs when the appeals for a reappraisement, enumerated on the schedule attached to and made part of this decision, were called for hearing, and the cases were consequently ordered submitted by the court.

Exile 5 (a) of the rules of the court provides that—

> The submission for decision of any case shall be made in open court by the parties thereto or their attorneys, or by stipulation, or by written request to the court, or by the court on its own motion. Where the plaintiff, petitioner, or appellant, or his attorney, in a case does not appear when the same is called, and after the opposite party has had opportunity to present evidence on the issues, it may be deemed submitted and may be decided by the court on the record as it appears therein.

Accordingly, I have examined the record in the appeals before the court and find nothing therein which tends in any way to overcome the presumption of correctness which attaches to the decision of the appraiser. I find and hold, therefore, that the proper values of the merchandise are the values returned by the appraiser.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
#### Gimbel Bros., Inc. *v.*United States

No. 7800.

Entry No. 701898, etc.

(Decided February 27, 1950)

*Fred Bennett*for the plaintiff.

*David N. Edelstein,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Lawrence, Judge:

It bas been agreed between tbe parties hereto that the issues herein relating to the merchandise the subject of these appeals are the same in all material respects as those decided in *United States*v. *Gothic Watch Co.,*23 Cust. Ct. 235, Reap. Dec. 7712, affirming the judgment in *Gothic Watch Co.*v. *United States,*19 Cust. Ct. 309, Reap. Dec. 7438, and that the record in Reap. Dec. 7712, *supra,*may be incorporated herein.

Upon the agreed facts, I find that the attempted appraisement embodied in the second return of value by the appraiser of the merchandise covered by each of these appeals for reappraisement was illegal, null, and void, and that the appraiser’s original return of value in each case, as reported by him to the collector of customs, constituted his appraisal of the merchandise pursuant to section 500 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1500), and was final and conclusive in the absence of any appeal pursuant to section 501 of said act (19 U. S. C. § 1501).

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 32.a
                                  ------------

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

                                 18 U.S.C. 1350,

                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Amended Quarterly Report of Morgan Beaumont, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ended December 31, 2004, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Clifford Wildes, in my capacity as Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:


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

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


                                       /S/ CLIFFORD WILDES
                                       -------------------
Date: November 14, 2005                 Clifford Wildes, Chief Executive Officer