alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2023104EN.01002002.xml

| 20.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 104/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/20

---

Order of the President of the Court of 12 December 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS) v Ryanair DAC

(Case C-380/21, (1) INPS)

(2023/C 104/26)

Language of the case: Italian

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

---

(1)  
  OJ C 349, 30.8.2021.

---
# C_2021019EN.01006601.xml

| 18.1.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 19/66 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 19/66

---

Action brought on 16 November 2020 — Legero Schuhfabrik v EUIPO — Rieker Schuh (Schuhwaren)

(Case T-683/20)

(2021/C 19/72)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Legero Schuhfabrik GmbH (Feldkirchen bei Graz, Austria) (represented by: M. Gail, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Rieker Schuh AG (Thayngen, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the design at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Design at issue: Community design No 1 457 113-0405

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 September 2020 in Case R 1648/2019-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 5 and Article 25(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 5 and Article 25(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002;

| — | Infringement of Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002;

| — | Infringement of the second sentence of Article 62 of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the second sentence of Article 62 of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002;

| — | Infringement of the first sentence of Article 62 of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the first sentence of Article 62 of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002.

---
JACKET: 571-928

TITLE: Green Exam Tape Roll

AGENCY: DHS/CBP

ABSTRACT FOR FORMAL JACKET 571-928

CONTRACTOR PRICE DISCOUNT DISCOUNTED PRICE

I.R. Industries $200,970.00 1% - 20 Days $198,960.30

AWARDED TO: I.R. INDUSTRIES
GPO G-Invoicing Implementation Team

Joann Sharp

Treasury’s G-Invoicing Mandate
How will G-Invoicing impact working with GPO?

▪ Beginning October 1, 2022 (FY23), all orders placed with GPO, that are being paid through IPAC, will 

require an approved GT&C and Order in the G-Invoicing system.

▪ GPO will still require customers to furnish traditional order forms for all printing and publishing 

services (i.e. SF-1, 2511, etc.).

▪ Refer to Circular Letter No. 1057: G-Invoicing - Information for U.S. Government Publishing Office 

(GPO) Customers for more information.

▪ GPO is actively working internally and with Treasury’s Bureau of Fiscal Service to ensure the transition 

to G-Invoicing is as smooth and flexible as possible for GPO customers.

▪ Treasury’s Official G-Invoicing Website: https://fiscal.treasury.gov/g-invoice/
What should you do between now and October 2022?

▪ Talk with your agency’s G-Invoicing Planning and Implementation Team to understand how your agency 

will be adopting this new platform. 

▪ If you require assistance identifying your agency’s POC, you can send an email to:

▪ Treasury Fiscal Service Team: IGT@fiscal.treasury.gov or

▪ GPO Team: ginv@gpo.gov

▪ Look out for G-Invoicing Circular Letters that you can share internally with all personnel involved in 

ordering, obligating funds, and authorizing payments for services and products obtained from GPO.

▪ To subscribe e-mail circulars@gpo.gov and include your name and the name of your agency in the body of your e-mail.

▪ Contact the GPO Implementation Team at GINV@gpo.gov if you have questions, concerns, or would like 

to meet to discuss how we can work together.

▪ GPO will continue providing updates when additional information regarding the mandate of G-Invoicing 

becomes available. 
GPO G-Invoicing Team Mailbox GINV@gpo.gov

GPO Implementation Team

Don Bartolomei

Robin Bilger

Joann Sharp
Exhibit 23.2



CONSENT OF NAVIGANT CONSULTING



We hereby consent to the references to our firm with respect to Georgia-Pacific Corporations probable insurance recoveries for asbestos liabilities
contained in the Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended July 2, 2005 of Georgia-Pacific Corporation and any amendments thereto. In giving the foregoing consent, we do not admit that we come within the category of persons whose consent is required
under Section 7 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the Securities Act), or the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder, nor do we admit that we are experts with respect to any part of such Form 10-Q within the meaning of the
term experts as used in the Securities Act or the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder.



Navigant ConsultingBy:

/s/ SHARON SIEGEL VOELZKEName:

Sharon Siegel VoelzkeTitle:

Managing Director




Lawrenceville, New Jersey

July 28, 2005
<PAGE>
                                                                     Exhibit 23


                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-3 Nos. 33-93572, 33-97712, 333-08985, 333-13519, 333-24165, 333-31183,
333-39247 and 333-43475 and Form S-8 Nos. 333-12117, 333-29759 and 333-29763)
and related Prospectuses of Highwoods Properties, Inc. and in the Registration
Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-31183-01) and related Prospectus of
Highwoods/Forsyth Limited Partnership of our report dated February 20, 1998 with
respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Highwoods/
Forsyth Limited Partnership included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the
year ended December 31, 1997.


                                                  /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP



Raleigh, North Carolina
March 27, 1998
#### Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board and City of Pittsburgh, Appellees, *v.*Victor Popatek, Appellant.

Argued February 7, 1975,

before Judges Kramer, Rogers and Blatt, sitting as a panel of three.

*S. W. Elovitz,*with him *Lipsitz, Nassau, Schwartz & Evans,*for appellant.

*Bernice Hummert,*Assistant City Solicitor, with her *James N. Diefenderfer,*for appellees.

*159March 25, 1975:

Opinion by

Judge Kramer,

This is an appeal by Victor Popatek (Popatek) from an order of the Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Board), dated June 27, 1974, which affirmed the referee’s dismissal of Popatek’s claim for workmen’s compensation.

Popatek was employed by the City of Pittsburgh (City)i as a skilled laborer, when on March 11, 1971, he slipped on a curb and injured his knee. Popatek filed a claim for workmen’s compensation on June 7, 1973. The City filed an answer alleging that Popatek’s claim is barred by the statute of limitations.1 A hearing was held before a referee on December 20, 1973, and on that same day the referee dismissed Popatek’s claim, holding that it was barred by the statute of limitations. Popatek appealed to the Board, which affirmed the referee’s dismissal.

In his appeal to this Court, Popatek contends that the City lulled him into a false sense of security and, therefore, it should not be permitted to raise the bar of the statute of limitations. *See M. Gordon & Sons, Inc. v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board,*14 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 288, 321 A. 2d 396 (1974).

We have carefully reviewed the record in this case, and we find no merit in Popatek’s contention. The record indicates that Popatek may have been confused about his rights, and that he may have made an ineffective attempt to file a claim for compensation, but there is absolutely nothing in this record which would indicate that the City in any way misled Popatek or in any way *160lulled him into a false sense of security. The Board correctly concluded that Popatek’s claim is barred by the statute of limitations and we must affirm. We therefore

Order

And Now, this 25th day of March, 1975, the order of the Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board, dated June 27, 1974, dismissing the claim petition of Victor Popatek, is hereby affirmed.

1

. *See*section 815 of the Pennsylvania Workmen’s Compensation Act, Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 786, as *amended,*77 P.S. §602 (Supp. 1974-1975). At the time of Popatek’s accident the applicable statute of limitations was sixteen months, but since that time section 315 has been amended to provide for a two-year statute of limitations. Popatek’s claim was filed approximately 27 months after his accident.
#### Harper *v.*The State.

Or a trial for larcerny, tlie record states that the jury “were sworn and impaneled, and took their places in the jury box;” *held,*that the manner of swearing the jury was erroneous.

*Appeal from Sebastian Circuit Court.*

Hon. A. N. Hargrove, Circuit Judge.

Clendenin, J.

Thomas Harper was indicted in the circuit court of Sebastian county for the crime of larceny; was tried by a jury and found guilty; he moved in arrest of judgment and for a new trial, and the .motion being overruled, he excepted to the opinion and judgment of the circuit court, and appealed.

The only question raised by the record in this case, is as to the manner of swearing the jury. The transcript of the record before ns says, the jury “were sworn and impaneled, and took their place in the jury box.” This manner of swearing a jury is clearly erroneous. This court, in the case of *Patterson v. The*State, *7 Ark., 59,*have indicated the form of oath to be administered to juries in criminal cases, and that form should be complied with. In the case of *Bell v. The State, 10 Ark., 540,*this court also say: “The record shows that the jury were sworn only ‘to try the issue joined.’ This was irregular. They should also have been sworn 'to give a true verdict according to law and evidence. Had it been stated on the record that the jury were duly or regularly sworn, we would have presumed that the oath had been property administered.” See, also, the cases of *Sanford v. The State, 11 Ark., 328,*and *Bivens v. The State, 11 Ark., 455.*

*84For the error indicated in the manner of swearing the jury, in this ease, the case must be reversed and remanded to the circuit court, with directions to that court to grant the appellant a new trial.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Brent Frazier, Appellant.

[655 NYS2d 1007]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (George, J.), rendered May 15, 1995, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (two counts), robbery in the second degree (six counts), assault in the second degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and sentencing him to consecutive terms of imprisonment of 10 to 20 years on the convictions of robbery in the first degree, 71/2 to 15 years imprisonment, to run consecutive to the sentences for robbery in the first degree, on one count of robbery in the second degree, 71/a to 15 years imprisonment, to run consecutive to the first three sentences, on a second count of robbery in the second degree, *l112*to 15 years imprisonment, to run concurrent with the first four sentences, on each of three counts of robbery in the second degree, and concurrent terms of imprisonment of one year for criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, 31/2 to 7 years for assault in the second degree, and one year for each conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by vacating the sentences imposed upon the defendant’s convictions of robbery in the second degree; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for resentencing on those convictions.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]).

However, the trial court failed to specifically pronounce sentence on each of the counts of which the defendant was *619convicted. Specifically, the court mentioned only five sentences for robbery in the second degree when the defendant was convicted of six counts of that crime. Accordingly, the matter must be remitted for resentencing on those convictions *(see,*CPL 380.20; *People v Sturgis,*69 NY2d 816; *People v Santiago,*231 AD2d 652; *People v Moore,*194 AD2d 695; *People v Hansley,*88 AD2d 622).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Pizzuto, J. P., Altman, McGinity and Luciano, JJ., concur.
#### THE STATE *vs.*WILLIAM BUCKLEY.

Husband fined for striking his wife.

New Castle,

November Term, 1838.

Indictment for an assault and battery.

The defendant was indicted for an assault and battery on his *wife.*The complainant exhibited a black eye, and proved that her husband had, w'ithout any provocation, struck her a blow with his fist, which caused it. She was pregnant.

The defendant’s counsel intimated that a husband had the right to chastise his wife; and it would not be politic to encourage these complaints in a court of justice, between persons bearing the relation of husband and wife.

*The Court.*

The wife must be protected. We know of no law that will authorize a husband to strike his pregnant wife a blow with his fist, such as has been inflicted on this woman.

The attorney general said that the court had heretofore decided in the case of the *State*vs. *George Gibbs,*in Kent, that any undue or excessive battery by a husband of his wife either in degree, or with improper means, was indictable.

*The Court*imposed a fine on Buckley; and directed him to be bound to surety of the peace.
#### Donald S. GENUNG, Sheriff of Pinellas County, Florida, Petitioner, v. Honorable Charles R. HOLLEY, as Judge of the Circuit Court of Pinellas County, Florida, Respondent.

No. 70-379.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

July 8, 1970.

Prohibition denied.
#### Willie James LINDSEY a/k/a Rudy Nathaniel Lindsey, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-731.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 6, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
No. 89.

#### Thorvald Berg et al. *v.*United States.

Appeal from the Court of Claims.

Submitted October 23, 1925.

Decided October 26, 1925.

*Solicitor General Mitchell, Assistant Attorney General Letts*and *Mr. J. Frank Staley,*Special Assistant to the Attorney General, .for the United States.

*Per Curiam.*

Dismissed upon the authority of *Omnia Commercial Co.*v. *United States,*261 U. S. 502. *Mr. Paul Cooksey*for appellants.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF JULY 3, 1999 AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF
OPERATIONS FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED JULY 3, 1999 FOR GENRAD, INC. AND
SUBSIDIARIES AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CURRENCY>                                 U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-03-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           8,799
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   77,969
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,996
<INVENTORY>                                     50,274
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               142,800
<PP&E>                                          80,443
<DEPRECIATION>                                  38,281
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 242,428
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           59,868
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        29,713
<OTHER-SE>                                     128,639
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   242,428
<SALES>                                         46,069
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                63,618
<CGS>                                           22,806
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   32,854
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                21,778
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 262
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,854
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (894)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,960
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,960
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.28
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.27


</TABLE>
Exhibit 3.7


                               STATE OF DELAWARE
                            CERTIFICATE OF MERGER OF
                            FOREIGN CORPORATION INTO
                             A DOMESTIC CORPORATION


     Pursuant to Title 8, Section 252 of the Delaware General Corporation Law,
the undersigned corporation executes the following Certificate of Merger:

     FIRST: The name of the surviving corporation is Digital Broadband Networks,
Inc., a Delaware corporation, and the name of the corporation being merged into
this surviving corporation is Digital Broadband Networks, Inc., a Colorado
Corporation.

     SECOND: The Agreement of Merger has been approved, adopted, certified,
executed and acknowledged by each of the constituent corporations pursuant to
Title 8, Section 252 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware.

     THIRD: The name of the surviving corporation is Digital Broadband Networks,
Inc., a Delaware corporation.

     FOURTH: The Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of the
surviving corporation shall be its Certificate of Incorporation.

     FIFTH: The authorized stock and par value of the non-Delaware corporation
is (i) 100,000,000 shares of common stock, par value $0.00001 per share and (ii)
1,000,000 shares of preferred stock, par value $0.10 per share.

     SIXTH: This merger is to become effective on June 5, 2002.

     SEVENTH: The Agreement of Merger is on file at the office of the Surviving
Corporation.

     EIGHTH: A copy of the Agreement of Merger will be furnished by the
surviving corporation, without cost, to any stockholder of the constituent
corporations, by request made to Digital Broadband Networks, Inc., Suite 11.02,
Menara Marais, No. 1, Jalan 19/3, 46300 Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia,
Attention: Ms. Valerie Looi.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, said surviving corporation has caused this certificate
to be signed by an authorized officer, the 5th day of June, 2002, A.D.,


                                  By:      /s/ Patrick Soon-Hock Lim
                                           --------------------------
                                                Authorized Officer

                                  Name:   Patrick Soon-Hock Lim
                                          ---------------------


                                  Title:  President and Chief Executive Officer
                                          -------------------------------------
## Emi '37 DI us 

## Defect Informatbli EDIR Number: 2011.02.10.03

'

- Manufacturer: Kia Motors Corporation 2. Description of the defect: 2009 and 2010 model year Optima's equipped with 2.7 liter engines have a software error regarding On- : oard )diagnosis (OBD) system applying an in-use performance ratio (R:M) requirement. it was found that ECM stores and updates numerator and denominator normally but may not transmit the correct denominator value to certain Generic Scan Tools (GST). Should this occur the GST would report an error. The "on-board" evaluation of correct operation is unaffected. To correct this problem, Kia has reprogrammed the PCM to properly output all values correctly. Description of vehicles potentially affected by the defect: Maker Model Model Year Test Group Sales Volume Kia Optima 2.7 2009 2010 9KMXV02.7GW5 1,946

AKMXV02.7GW5 1,300 4. The number of vehicles containing the defect and the means by which the number of involved vehicles was determined: Number of involved vehicles: All vehicles could be potentially affected by this problem. Address of involved assembly plant: waseong Assembly Plant, Hwaseong-si, Gyeonggi-do, Korea 5. Evaluation of the emission and driveability impact of the defect: In reprogramming the PCM, there is no change in the EMS data. Therefore, the emissions impact of this change would be insignificant.
Available emission data that relate to the defect: No specific test data is available. 7. Anticipated follow-up by Kia Kia will publish a Technical Service bulletin (TSB) to provide repair information to KIA dealers for this condition, and will reprogram affected power-train control units.