alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2022213EN.01001601.xml

| 30.5.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 213/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 213/16

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Łodzi-Śródmieścia w Łodzi — Poland) — Proceedings relating to the recognition and enforcement of a financial penalty imposed on D.B.

(Case C-150/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Mutual recognition - Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA - Enforcement of financial penalties - Article 1(a)(ii) - Decision imposing a financial penalty issued by an administrative authority - Decision open to appeal to a public prosecutor, subject to instructions from the Minister for Justice - Subsequent appeal before a court having jurisdiction in particular in criminal matters)

(2022/C 213/19)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy dla Łodzi-Śródmieścia w Łodzi

Parties to the main proceedings

Defendant: D.B.

Intervening party: Prokuratura Rejonowa Łódź-Bałuty

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(a)(ii) of Council Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA of 24 February 2005 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that a final decision requiring a financial penalty to be paid by a natural person, adopted by an authority of the issuing Member State other than a court in respect of a criminal offence under the law of the issuing Member State, constitutes a ‘decision’, within the meaning of that provision, where the legislation of that Member State provides that an appeal against that decision is to be examined first by a public prosecutor placed under the hierarchical authority of the Minister for Justice and subsequently, if that public prosecutor adopts a decision dismissing that appeal, a court having jurisdiction in particular in criminal matters may be seised by the person concerned, provided that access to that court is not made subject to conditions which make it impossible or excessively difficult.

---

(1)  OJ C 329, 16.8.2021.

---
No. 72-6089.

#### Von Atzingen *v.*United States.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
# C_2021263EN.01000701.xml

| 5.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 263/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 263/7

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad voor Vreemdelingenbetwistingen (Belgium) lodged on 9 April 2021 — X, acting in her own name and as legal representative of her minor children, Y and Z v Belgische Staat

(Case C-230/21)

(2021/C 263/10)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad voor Vreemdelingenbetwistingen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: X, acting in her own name and as legal representative of her minor children, Y and Z

Defendant: Belgische Staat

Questions referred

| 1. | Should EU law, in particular Article 2(f), read in conjunction with Article 10(3)(a), of Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification (1) be interpreted as meaning that a refugee who is an ‘unaccompanied minor’, and who resides in a Member State, must be ‘unmarried’ under her national law in order to enjoy the right to family reunification with relatives in the direct ascending line? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Should EU law, in particular Article 2(f), read in conjunction with Article 10(3)(a), of Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification (1) be interpreted as meaning that a refugee who is an ‘unaccompanied minor’, and who resides in a Member State, must be ‘unmarried’ under her national law in order to enjoy the right to family reunification with relatives in the direct ascending line?

| 2. | If so, can a refugee minor whose marriage contracted abroad is not recognised for public policy reasons be regarded as an ‘unaccompanied minor’ within the meaning of Articles 2(f) and 10(3) of Directive 2003/86/EC? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If so, can a refugee minor whose marriage contracted abroad is not recognised for public policy reasons be regarded as an ‘unaccompanied minor’ within the meaning of Articles 2(f) and 10(3) of Directive 2003/86/EC?

---

(1)  OJ 2003 L 251, p. 12.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   OTHER
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-23-1997
<CASH>                                           1,970
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   20,614
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    105,381
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               132,306
<PP&E>                                         149,053
<DEPRECIATION>                                  70,408
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 221,831
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           68,011
<BONDS>                                         66,289
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        12,468
<OTHER-SE>                                      66,582
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   221,831
<SALES>                                        226,906
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               226,906
<CGS>                                          165,115
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  165,115
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                57,532
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,011
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,248
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,419
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,829
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,829
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .15
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .15
        

</TABLE>
House Calendar No. 219

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 535

[Report No. 103–731]

RESOLUTION

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4422)

for the Coast Guard, and for other purposes.to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1995

SEPTEMBER 20, 1994

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be

printed
IV

House Calendar No. 219

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 535

[Report No. 103–731]

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4422) to authorize appropriations

for fiscal year 1995 for the Coast Guard, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 20, 1994

Mr. MOAKLEY, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

RESOLUTION

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4422) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1995 for the Coast

Guard, and for other purposes.

1 Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this

2 resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of

3 rule XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee

4 of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consider5 ation of the bill (H.R. 4422) to authorize appropriations

6 for fiscal year 1995 for the Coast Guard, and for other

7 purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed
2

HRES 535 RH

1 with. All points of order against consideration of the bill

2 are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill

3 and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and con4 trolled by the chairman and ranking minority member of

5 the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. After

6 general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment

7 under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider

8 as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under

9 the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a sub10 stitute recommended by the Committee on Merchant Ma11 rine and Fisheries now printed in the bill. The committee

12 amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be consid13 ered by title rather than by section. Each title shall be

14 considered as read. All points of order against the commit15 tee amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived.

16 All points of order against amendments printed in the re17 port of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolu18 tion are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the

19 bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report

20 the bill to the House with such amendments as may have

21 been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote

22 in the House on any amendment adopted in the Commit23 tee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee amend24 ment in the nature of a substitute. The previous question

25 shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments
3

HRES 535 RH

1 thereto to final passage without intervening motion except

2 one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
#### Charles Wesley SANDERS, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 42904.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Nov. 15, 1972.

Certiorari denied. 266 So.2d *79.*

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.
No. 10751.

#### The Toledo & Ohio Central Railway Co. *v.*Miller.

Decided December 23, 1908.

Error to Circuit Court of Log'an county.

*Messrs. Doyle & Lewis*and *Mr. A. J. Miller,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. Duncan Dozv*and *E. P. Chamberlin*and *Mr. Ben S. Johnston,*for defendant in error.

Judgment of circuit court reversed and that of common pleas affirmed.

Price, C. J., Sitauck, Crew, Spear and Davis, JJ., concur.
1 This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Reports. Please see

2 Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please

3 also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other

4 deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the

5 filing date. 

6 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

7 CONSUELO LUCERO, 

8 Plaintiff-Appellant, 

9 v. NO. 29,859

10 DAVID TRUJILLO, SAFECO INSURANCE

11 COMPANY OF AMERICA, and PROGRESSIVE

12 HALCYON INSURANCE COMPANY, 

13 Defendants-Appellees.

14 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY 

15 Ted Baca, District Judge

16 Law Office of Geoffrey R. Romero 

17 Geoffrey R. Romero

18 Albuquerque, NM

19 Garcia & Vargas, LLC

20 Ray M. Vargas, II

21 David P. Garcia

22 Santa Fe, NM

23 for Appellant

24 Modrall, Sperling, Roehl, Harris & Sisk, P.A.

25 Douglas G. Schneebeck
2

1 Albuquerque, NM 

2 for Appellees
3

1 MEMORANDUM OPINION

2 BUSTAMANTE, Judge.

3 Insured appeals the grant of summary judgment in favor of Insurer. We

4 proposed to reverse based on our recent decision in Romero v. Progressive

5 Northwestern Ins. Co., No. 28,720, slip op. (N.M. Ct. App. Oct. 26, 2009). In

6 response, Insurer asks that we stay the case until the petition for writ of certiorari filed

7 in Romero is decided by our Supreme Court. We point out, however, that Romero is

8 the latest pronouncement from this Court, and although certiorari has been filed and

9 may be granted, the Supreme Court has not reversed or overruled this Court’s decision

10 in Romero. Until the Supreme Court does so, Romero remains controlling precedent

11 on which our courts are entitled to rely. See Arco Materials, Inc. v. Taxation &

12 Revenue Dep’t, 118 N.M. 12, 14, 878 P.2d 330, 332 (Ct. App. 1994), rev’d on other

13 grounds by Blaze Constr. Co. v. Taxation & Revenue Dep’t, 118 N.M. 647, 884 P.2d

14 803 (Ct. App. 1994). 

15 For the reasons explained in our calendar notice, we reverse the district court’s

16 order granting summary judgment in favor of Insurer, and remand for further

17 proceedings.
4

1 IT IS SO ORDERED.

2 

3 MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge

4 WE CONCUR:

5 

6 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge

7 

8 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge
#### SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY v. T. L. JAMES AND COMPANY, Inc., et al.

No. 2765.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Fourth Circuit.

Dec. 4, 1967.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 9, 1968.

Monroe & Lemann, Benjamin R. Slater, Jr., and J. Thomas Lewis, New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellant.

Porteous & Johnson, James L. Donovan, New Orleans, for defendants-appellants.

Before HALL, BARNETTE and JAN-VIER, JJ.

HALL, Judge.

For the reasons assigned in our No. 2764, New Orleans and Northeastern Railroad Company v. T. L. James and Company, La.App. 205 So.2d 48, the judgment appealed from in this case is amended by increasing the amount awarded in favor of Southern Railway Company against T. L. James and Company, Inc. from $5,730.75 to the sum of $11,461.50 and as so amended and in all other respects the judgment is affirmed; costs of the appeals in this case to be borne by T. L. James and Company, Inc.

Amended and affirmed.
##### Table of Contents



UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
 Washington, D.C. 20549
 FORM 10-KSB/A
 Amendment No. 2.
 (Mark One)
 þ
    
    ANNUAL REPORT UNDER SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE
ACT OF 1934
 For the fiscal year ended: December 31, 2007
 o
    
    TRANSITION REPORT UNDER SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES
EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
 For the transition period from:  to
 Commission File No.: 0-30303
 GLOBAL CLEAN ENERGY, INC.
  MARYLAND
    
    84-1522846(State or Other Jurisdiction of Incorporation 
or Organization)
    
    (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)
 
    þ o
 o
 o þ
    o þ




---



##### Table of Contents



Explanatory Note




---



##### 



TABLE OF CONTENTS
 PART IIItem 8A. Controls and Procedures
    
    
    1SIGNATURES
    
    
    2Exhibit Index
    
    
    3Certification of CEO Pursuant to Section 302Certification of CFO Pursuant to Section 302Certification of CEO Pursuant to Section 906Certification of CFO Pursuant to Section 906




---



##### Table of Contents



ITEM 8A. CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES
  
    
    Pertain to the maintenance of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and
fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of our assets;
    
    Provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to permit
preparation of financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles, and that our receipts and expenditures are being made only in accordance
with authorizations by our management and/or directors; and
    
    Provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of
unauthorized acquisition, use or disposition of our assets that could have a material
effect on the financial statements.
      1




---



##### Table of Contents



SIGNATURES
  GLOBAL CLEAN ENERGY, INC.By /s/ Kenneth S. AdesskyKenneth S. AdesskyChief Financial Officer
(Principal Accounting Officer)  2




---



##### Table of Contents



EXHIBIT INDEX
 Exhibit Number
    
    Description31.1
    
    Certification of Chief Executive Officer
pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 (6)31.2
    
    Certification of Chief Financial Officer
pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 (6)32.1
    
    Certification of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (6)32.2
    
    Certification of Chief Financial Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (6)
 (6)
    
    Filed herewith.  3
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 554 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 554

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                    September 29, 1994.
    Resolved, That all points of order against the conference report to 
accompany the bill (H.R. 4650) making appropriations for the Department of 
Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1995, and for other purposes, 
and against its consideration are waived.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
# C_2022368EN.01002002.xml

| 26.9.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 368/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.9.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 368/20

---

Order of the President of the Court of 8 June 2022 — European Parliament v European Commission

(Case C-657/21) (1)

(2022/C 368/33)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 11, 10.1.2022.

---
EX-10(B) Amend to 2000 Long Term Incentive Plan




Exhibit 10(b)

AMENDMENT DATED MAY 11, 2001 TO THE

2000 TRW LONG-TERM INCENTIVE PLAN


      TRW Inc., by action of the Compensation Committee of its Board of
Directors, hereby adopts this Amendment dated May 11, 2001 to the 2000 TRW
Long-Term Incentive Plan (the “Plan”).


I.


      Effective as of the close of business on May 11, 2001, Section 2(e) of the
Plan is amended to read in its entirety as follows:



		
	 	(e) Fair Market Value. For any particular date,
the average of the high and low sales prices of a
Share on such date on the New York Stock Exchange
Composite Transactions Listing as reported by the
New York Stock Exchange or such other source as may
be approved by resolution of the Committee (or if
there are no sales on such date, then the closing
sale price on such Listing on the nearest date
before such date).
# c/: .

Stuar t S . MacPherso n P.O . Bo x 80 7 Cardiff , Calif. 9200 7 Jun e 18,200 7 Th e Honorabl e Richar dC . Goodwin , Administrativ e La w Judg e Offic e o f Hearings , M-2 0 U.S . Dept . o f

Transportatio n 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Ave . S.E . Eas t Buildin g Groun dFloor , Roo mEl2-32 0 Washington , D.C . 2059 0 ^ , . / , . -^i . . . ^^

^ Dear Judg e Goodwin , I ami nreceip t

o f aNotic e o f

Assignmen t

o f Proceedin g for

Cas e No . 2009WP91011 6 whic hinform s m e tha t

yo u wil l b e th e presidin g Judg e i nthi s hearing . A s yo u ar e base d i nWashingto nD.C . I mus t assum e tha t

th e hearin g wil l b e takin g plac e i ntha t city . A s trave l t o Washington , D.C . an dtim e awa y fromm y hom e i nSa nDieg o wil l presen t a n imdu e hardshi p I respectfull y request , a s di dLaur aPonto , Complainant' s Counsel , tha t th e hearin g fo r

th e above-reference dproceedm g b e hel di nSa nDiego . Than k yo u fo r you r consideratio ni nthi s matter .

C 3 -^X > •

S . MacPherso n 

### fe. rr . r o C O 1



### - 0

CJ 1 

### ipo? ?

- 1 . C O
No. 00-964.

#### Stout et al. *v.*Byrider, aka Docherty Motors, Inc., et al.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.