alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2023015EN.01001501.xml

| 16.1.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 15/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.1.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/15

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 November 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie — Poland) — ‘TOYA’ sp. z o.o., Polska Izba Informatyki i Telekomunikacji v Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej

(Case C-243/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Telecommunications - Directive 2002/19/EC (Access Directive) - Article 8(3) - Directive 2014/61/EU - Articles 1(3), 1(4) and 3(5) - Power of the national regulatory authority to impose ex ante regulatory conditions relating to access to the physical infrastructure of a network operator not having significant market power - Absence of a dispute relating to access)

(2023/C 15/14)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant:‘TOYA’ sp. z o.o., Polska Izba Informatyki i Telekomunikacji

Defendant: Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej

Intervener: Polska Izba Komunikacji Elektronicznej

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 1(3), 1(4) and 3(5) of Directive 2014/61/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on measures to reduce the cost of deploying high-speed electronic communications networks, read in conjunction with (i) Articles 1(1), 5(1) and 8(3) of Directive 2002/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities (Access Directive) as amended by Directive 2009/140/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009, and (ii) Articles 8 and 12 of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive) as amended by Directive 2009/140,

must be interpreted as not precluding a competent national regulatory authority in the field of electronic communications from imposing on a network operator which has not been designated as having significant market power the obligation to apply the conditions for access to that operator’s physical infrastructure by the undertakings active in that area, as determined ex ante by that authority, including the rules and procedures for entering into contracts and the applicable access fees, irrespective of the existence of a dispute relating to that access and effective competition.

---

(1)  OJ C 289, 19.7.2021.

---
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 205 (Wednesday, October 23, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 63207]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-24179]

[[Page 63207]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality

Special Emphasis Panel; Meeting

AGENCY: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2), announcement is made of an Agency for 
Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Special Emphasis Panel (SEP) 
meeting on ``AHRQ RFA-HS-13-010, Closing the Gap in Healthcare 
Disparities through Dissemination and Implementation of Patient 
Centered Outcomes Research (U18)''. Each SEP meeting will commence in 
open session before closing to the public for the duration of the 
meeting.

DATES: November 6, 2013 (Open on November 6 from 8:00 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. 
and closed for the remainder of the meeting).

ADDRESSES: Hyatt Regency Hotel Bethesda, One Metro Center, Bethesda, MD 
20814.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anyone wishing to obtain a roster of 
members, agenda or minutes of the non-confidential portions of this 
meeting should contact: Mrs. Bonnie Campbell, Committee Management 
Officer, Office of Extramural Research, Education and Priority 
Populations, AHRQ, 540 Gaither Road, Room 2038, Rockville, Maryland 
20850, Telephone: (301) 427-1554.
    Agenda items for this meeting are subject to change as priorities 
dictate.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A Special Emphasis Panel is a group of 
experts in fields related to health care research who are invited by 
the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), and agree to be 
available, to conduct on an as needed basis, scientific reviews of 
applications for AHRQ support. Individual members of the Panel do not 
attend regularly-scheduled meetings and do not serve for fixed terms or 
a long period of time. Rather, they are asked to participate in 
particular review meetings which require their type of expertise.
    Each SEP meeting will commence in open session before closing to 
the public for the duration of the meeting. The SEP meeting referenced 
above will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions 
set forth in 5 U.S.C. App. 2, section 10(d), 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4), and 5 
U.S.C. 552b(c)(6). The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Dated: September 25, 2013.
Richard Kronick,
Director.
[FR Doc. 2013-24179 Filed 10-22-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-90-P
```
#### R. B. LILLY, Sr., and Opal Lilly, his wife, and Alvin Lilly, all individually and as co-partners d/b/a Lilly Farms, Appellants, v. Leslie Pope LILLY, as widow and heir at law of Richard Blake Lilly, Jr., deceased, and Thomas Blake Lilly, a minor, as heir of Richard Blake Lilly, Jr., deceased, by his mother and next friend, Leslie Pope Lilly, and Leslie Pope Lilly, as Administratrix of the Estate of Richard Blake Lilly, Jr., deceased, Appellees.

No. M-29.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 12, 1970.

Rehearing Denied June 17, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### Augusta WINSTON, Appellant, v. FRIEDOR REALTY CORP. d/b/a Dorset Hotel, and Crown Pest Control Service, Inc., d/b/a Roc-Lin Pest Control, Appellees.

No. 66-920.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

July 18, 1967.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 16, 1967.

Albert, Weiner & Rubin, Miami, for appellant.

West & Goldman, for Friedor; Wicker, Smith, Pyszka, Blomqvist & Davant, Miami, for Crown Pest Control, appellees.

Before PEARSON, BARKDULL and HENDRY, JJ.

*97PER CURIAM.

Affirmed upon authority of Cone v. Inter County Telephone & Telegraph Co., Fla.1949, 40 So.2d 148; Carter v. Hector Supply Co., Fla.1961, 128 So.2d 390, 393; Crosby v. Manly Construction Company, Fla.App.1966, 193 So.2d 11.
# Official Journal C 64/2021

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 64 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6424 February 2021 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 64

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6424 February 2021

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2021/C 64/01 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10125 — GBL/Canyon) (
  1
  ) | 1 |
| 2021/C 64/02 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10086 — Cerberus Group/Dorel Industries) (
  1
  ) | 2 |

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2021/C 64/01

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10125 — GBL/Canyon) (
  1
  )

1

1

2021/C 64/02

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10086 — Cerberus Group/Dorel Industries) (
  1
  )

1

2

---

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2021/C 64/03 | Euro exchange rates — 23 February 2021 | 3 |
| 2021/C 64/04 | Administrative Commission of the European Communities on social security for migrant workers – Rates for conversion of currencies pursuant to Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 | 4 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2021/C 64/03

Euro exchange rates — 23 February 2021

3

2021/C 64/04

Administrative Commission of the European Communities on social security for migrant workers – Rates for conversion of currencies pursuant to Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72

4

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | European Commission |
| 2021/C 64/05 | Calls for proposals and related activities under the ERC Work Programme 2021 under Horizon Europe – the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2021-2027) | 6 |
| | OTHER ACTS |
| | European Commission |
| 2021/C 64/06 | Publication of a communication of approval of a standard amendment to a product specification for a name in the wine sector referred to in Article 17(2) and (3) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/33 | 7 |

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Commission

2021/C 64/05

Calls for proposals and related activities under the ERC Work Programme 2021 under Horizon Europe – the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2021-2027)

6

OTHER ACTS

European Commission

2021/C 64/06

Publication of a communication of approval of a standard amendment to a product specification for a name in the wine sector referred to in Article 17(2) and (3) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/33

7

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance. |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 358 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 358

Providing amounts from the contingent fund of the House for expenses of 
  investigations and studies by the Committee on the Judiciary in the 
           second session of the One Hundred Third Congress.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 10, 1994

 Mr. Brooks submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                 the Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Providing amounts from the contingent fund of the House for expenses of 
  investigations and studies by the Committee on the Judiciary in the 
           second session of the One Hundred Third Congress.

    Resolved, That (a) for expenses of investigations and studies by 
the Committee on the Judiciary (hereinafter in this resolution referred 
to as the ``Committee''), including expenses for provision of 
assistance for members of professional staff in obtaining specialized 
training under section 202(j) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 
1946, there shall be paid out of the contingent fund of the House not 
more than $2,734,853.
    (b) Not more than $5,000 of the amount specified in subsection (a) 
may be used for specialized training referred to in such subsection.
    Sec. 2. Payments under this resolution shall be made on vouchers 
authorized by the Committee, signed by the chairman of the Committee, 
and approved by the Committee on House Administration.
    Sec. 3. Amounts shall be available under this resolution for 
investigations and studies carried out during the period beginning at 
noon on January 3, 1994, and ending immediately before noon on January 
3, 1995.
    Sec. 4. Amounts made available under this resolution shall be 
expended in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Committee on 
House Administration.

                                 <all>
```
# C_2006151EN.01001401.xml

| 29.6.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 151/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.6.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 151/14

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4185 — CVCI/Amber Trust II/AB Sanitas)

(2006/C 151/05)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 20 June 2006, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition web site (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition web site (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4185. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://ec.europa.eu/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4185. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://ec.europa.eu/eur-lex/lex)

---
EXHIBIT NO. 10.7



MEMORANDUM









To:  Shawn M. Harrington
       Senior Vice President



From:  Marc T. Giles



Date:  December 7, 2001





On November 29, 2001, the Board of Directors of Gerber Scientific, Inc. (the "Board") appointed you Chief Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer of Gerber Scientific, Inc. (the "Company").  The Management Development and Compensation Committee of the Board (the "MDCC") has set your base salary at $265,000 per year effective December 3, 2001.  Your bonus target remains at 50% and your fiscal year 2002 bonus will be calculated as follows:  the bonus will be based on either the Gerber Coburn Optical, Inc. or Gerber Scientific, Inc.  Executive Bonus score, whichever is higher.  The bonus will be calculated using your base salary as of April 30, 2002.



Effective December 7, 2001, the MDCC has awarded you options to purchase 20,000 shares of the Common Stock of the Company and a restricted stock award of 10,000 shares, pursuant to the Company's 1992 Employee Stock Plan.



In addition, effective December 7, 2001, the Board has appointed you Chief Executive Officer of Gerber Coburn Optical, Inc.



If this memorandum sets forth our agreement on the subject matter hereof, kindly sign and return to the Company the enclosed copy of this memorandum, which will then constitute our agreement on this subject.







Marc T. Giles

President and CEO



Agreed this 7th day of December, 2001





________________________________

Shawn M. Harrington
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1

Certification Pursuant to

18 U.S.C. Section 1350,


as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906


of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


Not Filed Pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Friedman Industries,
Incorporated (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the
period ending December 31, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Jack Friedman, Chairman of the Board and
Chief Executive 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 requirement 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.

Dated: February 14, 2005



| |                     
| | --------------------
| | By /s/ JACK FRIEDMAN
| |                     
| | Name: Jack Friedman 

| |        |                                                  
| | ------ | -------------------------------------------------
| | Title: | Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
# C_2022318EN.01000501.xml

| 22.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 318/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 318/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 7 July 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bezirksgericht Bleiburg — Austria) — LKW WALTER Internationale Transportorganisation AG v CB, DF, GH

(Case C-7/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Service of documents - Regulation (EC) 1393/2007 - Article 8(1) - One-week period within which the right to refuse to accept a document is to be exercised - Enforcement order made in one Member State and served in another Member State in the language of the first Member State only - Legislation of that first Member State laying down an eight-day period to lodge an objection to that order - Period for lodging an objection starting to run at the same time as the period laid down for the purpose of exercising the right to refuse to accept the document - Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Right to an effective remedy)

(2022/C 318/06)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bezirksgericht Bleiburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: LKW WALTER Internationale Transportorganisation AG

Defendants: CB, DF, GH

Operative part of the judgment

Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters (service of documents), and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000 (OJ 2007 L 324, p. 79), read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

must be interpreted as precluding legislation of the Member State of the authority which issued a document to be served, pursuant to which the starting point of the one-week period referred to in Article 8(1) of that regulation, within which the addressee of such a document may refuse to accept it on one of the grounds set out in that provision, is the same as the starting point for the period within which a remedy is to be sought against that document in that Member State.

---

(1)  OJ C 88, 15.3.2021.

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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM INTERNALLY
PREPARED FOR THREE MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-Q FOR THE PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         339,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,505,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (427,000)
<INVENTORY>                                  1,653,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,392,000
<PP&E>                                       5,767,000
<DEPRECIATION>                             (4,094,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              10,778,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       13,727,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,172,000
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                10,778,000
<SALES>                                      3,382,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,646,000
<CGS>                                        1,841,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,623,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,975,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                39,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             226,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (217,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (221,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (221,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.02)


</TABLE>
Opinion issued February 14, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The

First District of Texas 

NO. 01-11-01102-CV

MONROE J. LEWIS, Appellant

V.

KOA GROUP, INC., Appellee

On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 4

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 993111

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Monroe J. Lewis has failed to timely file a brief. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 38.6(a) (governing time to file brief), 38.8(a) (governing failure of appellant to 

file brief). 
2

Appellant’s brief was first due on May 28, 2012. After being notified that 

this appeal was subject to dismissal, appellant did not respond. See TEX. R. APP. P.

38.8(a)(1) (authorizing dismissal for failure to file brief); 42.3(b) (allowing

involuntary dismissal of case).

We dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. We dismiss any pending 

motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Higley and Brown.
#### Harris M. KAFFIE et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. PIONEER BANK & TRUST COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10873.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

Oct. 30, 1967.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 28, 1967.

Writ Refused Jan. 18, 1968.

Bodenheimer, Looney & Jones, Shreveport, for appellant.

May & Woodley, Shreveport, for appel-lees.

Before AYRES, BOLIN and BAR-HAM, JJ.

AYRES, Judge.

In this matter which was heretofore before us (184 So.2d 595), defendant, its agents, and employees were enjoined from obstructing, closing, or blocking the passageway lying between plaintiffs’ and defendant’s properties in such a manner as to impede, hinder, or inconvenience its use for the passage of vehicles requiring vertical clearance to a height based upon the reasonable necessity, requirements, and convenience of plaintiffs in excess of 8' *6".*

A statement of the facts is contained in our original opinion and need not be repeated here. In an application for rehearing, defendant pointed out the necessity of the establishment of a definite height for vertical clearance in the passageway. *55A remand of the cause was ordered for that purpose. Upon remand evidence was introduced with reference to the height of the vehicles which would customarily use the passageway if sufficient vertical clearance existed below defendant’s overhanging second story. The testimony disclosed that, though the height of these vehicles generally ranged from 8' *7"*to 10' *6",*there were others of the motor-freight-transport type with heights of IF *3"*and IF IOI/2".

In a determination by the trial court that a reasonable clearance would be 12' *6",*an allowance was obviously made for the purpose of providing a margin of safety. We find no basis for disagreement with this conclusion.

Accordingly, the judgment appealed is affirmed at defendant-appellant’s costs.

Affirmed.