alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2021297EN.01001502.xml

| 26.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/15

---

Appeal brought on 28 January 2021 by Topcart GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 18 November 2020 in Case T-378/19, Topcart GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office

(Case C-49/21 P)

(2021/C 297/16)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Topcart GmbH (represented by: M. Hoffmann, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Carl International

By order of 12 May 2021, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) did not allow the appeal to proceed and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Anthony Brewer, Appellant.

[655 NYS2d 975]

Appeal by the *454defendant from an amended judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kohm, J., at admission; Griffin, J., at sentence), rendered February 24, 1995, revoking a sentence of probation previously imposed by the same court (Kohm, J.), upon a finding that he had violated a condition thereof, upon his admission, and imposing a sentence of imprisonment upon his previous conviction of attempted robbery in the third degree.

Ordered that the amended judgment is affirmed.

It is well settled that " 'a court imposing an amended sentence upon adjudicating a defendant to be in violation of the terms of probation, may direct that the period of imprisonment run consecutively to any sentence of imprisonment imposed on [the] intervening crime which formed the basis for the probation violation’ ” *(People v La Grave,*122 AD2d 294, 296; *People v Jackson,*106 AD2d 93, 94). Accordingly, in imposing an amended sentence upon the defendant’s violation of probation, it was within the sentencing court’s discretion to direct that the sentence run consecutively to the term of imprisonment previously imposed upon the defendant in New York County *(see, People v Wilmot,*208 AD2d 968; *People v Klein,*126 AD2d 670).

Furthermore, there is no merit to the defendant’s claim that the court violated his right to due process by adjourning the violation of probation proceeding to await disposition of the indictments pending against him in New York County *(see, People v Harris,*145 AD2d 435; *People v Cherry,*143 AD2d 1028; *cf., People v Jacks,*235 AD2d 247).

Finally, the amended sentence was not unduly harsh or excessive *(see, People v Delgado,*80 NY2d 780). Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Altman and Krausman, JJ., concur.
# C_2023054EN.01001301.xml

| 13.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 54/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 54/13

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 15 December 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski gradski sad — Bulgaria) — LM, NO v HUK-COBURG-Allgemeine Versicherung AG

(Case C-577/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles - Directive 2009/103/EC - Article 3, fourth paragraph - Concept of ‘personal injury’ - Cover by compulsory insurance - Road traffic accident - Death of a passenger - Right to compensation for minor children - Non-material damage - Suffering of a child resulting from the death of his or her parent as a result of that accident - Compensation only in the event of pathological damage)

(2023/C 54/14)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Sofiyski gradski sad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: LM, NO

Defendant: HUK-COBURG-Allgemeine Versicherung AG

Operative part of the judgment

The fourth paragraph of Article 3 of Directive 2009/103/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which makes compensation, by an insurer against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, for non-material damage suffered by close family members of victims of road traffic accidents subject to the condition that that harm entailed pathological damage to the health of such close family members.

---

(1)  OJ C 513, 20.12.2021.

---
House Calendar No. 188

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 483

[Report No. 103–613]

RESOLUTION

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3870)

ronmental technologies.to promote the research and development of enviJULY 20, 1994

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be

printed
IV

House Calendar No. 188

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 483

[Report No. 103–613]

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3870) to promote the research

and development of environmental technologies.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JULY 20, 1994

Ms. SLAUGHTER 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. 3870) to promote the research and development of environmental

technologies.

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. 3870) to promote the research and

6 development of environmental technologies. The first read7 ing of the bill shall be dispensed with. General debate shall
2

HRES 483 RH

1 be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equal2 ly divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking mi3 nority member of the Committee on Science, Space, and

4 Technology. After general debate the bill shall be consid5 ered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall

6 be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose

7 of amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment

8 in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of H.R.

9 4799. The amendment in the nature of a substitute shall

10 be considered by title rather than by section. Each title

11 shall be considered as read. At the conclusion of consider12 ation of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise

13 and report the bill to the House with such amendments

14 as may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a

15 separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted

16 in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the amend17 ment in the nature of a substitute made in order as origi18 nal text. The previous question shall be considered as or19 dered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage

20 without intervening motion except one motion to recommit

21 with or without instructions.
<PAGE>
                                                                EXHIBIT 23.1(a)


CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Forms S-8 No. 33-99070 and 333-64422 pertaining to the Chicago Miniature Lamp,
Inc. 1995 Incentive and Non-Statutory Stock Option Plan and Form S-3 No.
333-63028) of our report dated February 22, 2002, except for paragraph 6 of
Footnote 1 and Footnote 23, as to which the date is March 28, 2002, with respect
to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of SLI, Inc. included in
the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 30, 2001.



/s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP
---------------------------

Boston, Massachusetts
April 11, 2002
#### Jerry SCHAEFER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-67.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 29, 1972.

Basil E. Dalack, Miami, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Nelson E. Bailey, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant Schaefer was charged in Palm Beach County, Florida, on the 28th of April 1969 with having issued a worthless check for the purpose of obtaining things of value in violation of F.S. Section 832.05(3), F.S.A. On 29 September 1970 the defendant pled guilty and was sentenced on 22 January 1971 to confinement in the Palm Beach County jail for a period of one year. This appeal is from the judgment and sentence. The plea of guilty was obviously the result of plea-bargaining between the defendant’s attorney and the prosecuting attorney for the state.

Appellant’s first point on appeal questions the sufficiency of the trial court’s inquiry of appellant before accepting his plea. We affirm as to this point on the theory expressed by the First District Court of Appeal in Kelly v. State, Fla.App.1971, 254 So.2d 22.

Appellant’s second point charges that the trial court erred in failing to allow appellant to withdraw his guilty plea. We affirm as to the second point on two grounds. First, no timely motion to withdraw was made. See Rule 3.170(f), CrPR, 33 F.S.A., and Stapleton v. State, Fla.App. 1970, 239 So.2d 140, 142. Secondly, in our opinion, there is no adequate basis in the record to support the asserted error.

The judgment and sentence are affirmed without prejudice to the right of appellant *122to attack'voluntariness in fact of the guilty plea by appropriate motion under Rule 3.-850, CrPR.

Affirmed.

REED, C. J., and MAGER, J., concur.

WALDEN, J., dissents, with opinion.

WALDEN, Judge

(dissenting).

I am simply of the view that defendant has made an adequate showing in fact and law and the court should here reverse and remand with instructions to permit the defendant to withdraw his guilty plea and plead over.
<PAGE>
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                               .

SKILLSOFT PLC
SIGNIFICANT SUBSIDIARIES

                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
SUBSIDIARIES                                            JURISDICTION
<S>                                                     <C>
SkillSoft Corporation                                   Delaware
SkillSoft Ireland Ltd                                   Ireland
SmartForce UK Limited                                   England
SkillSoft Asia Pacific Pty Ltd                          Australia
Books24x7.com, Inc.                                     Delaware
CBT Finance Limited                                     Grand Cayman
CBT Technology Limited                                  Ireland
SkillSoft Canada Limited                                Canada
SmartForce Business Skills Ltd                          Ireland
SmartCertify Direct, Inc.                               Florida
SkillSoft Deutschland GmbH                              Germany
SkillSoft New Zealand Ltd                               New Zealand
SkillSoft France SARL                                   France
SmartForce Benelux B.V.                                 Netherlands
SkillSoft Asia Pacific PTE Ltd                          Singapore
SkillSoft International Holding Corporation             Delaware
</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 15.1

                         ACCOUNTANTS' AWARENESS LETTER

Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.  20549

Commissioners:

We are aware that our report dated November 12, 2001, on our review of the
condensed consolidated interim financial information of Global Marine Inc. and
subsidiaries (the "Company") as of and for the period ended September 30, 2001,
and included in the Company's quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter then
ended is incorporated by reference in (i) the prospectus constituting part of
the Company's Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Registration Nos. 33-32088,
33-40961 and 33-63326), respectively, for the Global Marine Inc. 1989 Stock
Option and Incentive Plan and the Global Marine 1998 Stock Option and Incentive
Plan, (ii) the prospectus constituting part of the Company's Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (Registration Nos. 333-80383, 333-40244, 33-32088, 33-
40961, and 33-63326) for the Global Marine 1998 Stock Option and Incentive Plan,
(iii) the prospectus constituting part of the Company's Registration Statement
on Form S-8 (Registration No. 33-40266) for the Global Marine Savings Incentive
Plan, (iv) the prospectus constituting part of the Company's Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (Registration No. 33-40961) for the Global Marine Inc.
1990 Non-Employee Director Stock Option Plan, (v) the prospectus constituting
part of the Company's Registration Statement on Form S-8 (Registration No. 33-
57691) for the Global Marine Inc. 1994 Non-Employee Stock Option and Incentive
Plan, (vi) the prospectus constituting part of the Company's Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (Registration No. 333-40244) for the Global Marine Non-
Employee Director Restricted Stock Plan, (vii) the combined prospectus
constituting part of the Company's Registration Statements on Form S-3
(Registration Nos. 33-58577 and 333-49807) for the proposed offering of up to
$500,000,000 of debt securities, preferred stock and/or common stock, (viii) the
prospectus constituting part of the Company's Registration Statement on Form S-3
(Registration No. 333-45908) for the resale of up to $600,000,000 principal
amount at maturity of Zero Coupon Convertible Debentures due June 23, 2020, and
shares of common stock of the Company issuable upon conversion thereof; and (ix)
the joint proxy statement / prospectus constituting part of the Registration
Statement on Form S-4 (Registration No. 333-70268) of Santa Fe International
Corporation relating to the solicitation of proxies and the issuance of Ordinary
Shares, par value $0.01 per share, of Santa Fe International Corporation in
connection with a proposed combination of Santa Fe International Corporation and
Global Marine Inc.

Very truly yours,

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Houston, Texas
November 13, 2001
# C_2023024EN.01001201.xml

| 23.1.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.1.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/12

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 24 November 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Belgium) — VZW Belgisch-Luxemburgse vereniging van de industrie van plantenbescherming (Belplant), formerly VZW Belgische Vereniging van de Industrie van Plantenbeschermingsmiddelen (PHYTOFAR) v Vlaams Gewest

(Case C-658/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical regulations and of rules on Information Society services - Directive (EU) 2015/1535 - Concept of ‘technical regulation’ - Article 1(1) - National legislation prohibiting individuals from using pesticides containing glyphosate on land in private use - Article 5(1) - Obligation on Member States to communicate to the European Commission any draft technical regulation)

(2023/C 24/16)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: VZW Belgisch-Luxemburgse vereniging van de industrie van plantenbescherming (Belplant), formerly VZW Belgische Vereniging van de Industrie van Plantenbeschermingsmiddelen (PHYTOFAR)

Defendant: Vlaams Gewest

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(1) of Directive (EU) 2015/1535 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 September 2015 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical regulations and of rules on Information Society services, read in conjunction with Article 5 thereof

must be interpreted as meaning that national legislation which prohibits persons who do not have a national authorisation intended for professionals from using pesticides containing glyphosate on land in private use is capable of constituting a ‘technical regulation’, within the meaning of Article 1(1)(d) and (f) of that directive, which must be communicated to the European Commission under Article 5 of that directive, in so far as the application of that national legislation may significantly influence the marketing of the products concerned, which is a matter for the referring court to determine.

---

(1)  OJ C 73, 14.2.2022.

---
#### James SHAW, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. P-391.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 6, 1972.

*96Richard W. Ervin, III, Public Defender, and John W. Watson, III, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and A. S. Johnston, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted after a jury trial on charges of possession and sale of heroin. Both charges arose out of the same criminal transaction.

The first contention made by appellant is that the trial judge committed reversible error by refusing to instruct the jury on the* issue of entrapment as requested by defense counsel. No error has been shown in this regard. See Blackshear v. State, 246 So.2d 173 (Fla.App.1971).

There is merit to appellant’s second point which contends that the trial court erred in imposing separate sentences for possession and sale of heroin when the record reflects that both offenses were a facet of the same transaction. According to the informations filed, both offenses occurred on March 25, 1971, at 10:50 P.M. at Leonard’s Pool Hall, Fairfax Drive in Pensacola, Florida.

In Martin v. State, 251 So.2d 283 (Fla.App.1971), citing from Wells v. State, 168 So.2d 787 (Fla.App.1964), the court stated the controlling rule to be as follows:

> “ . . . It is established law in Florida that where convictions are entered on two offenses, each of which constitutes a facet of a single transaction, it is improper to impose sentence on each. [Citations omitted.] In such a case, only one sentence should be imposed and that sentence should be on the highest offense charged. . . . ”

In Martin, supra, we held that the sale of heroin is a more serious or higher offense than possession thereof and therefore set aside the sentences there being considered which had been imposed for possession of heroin, and at the same time we affirmed the sentences imposed for the sale of that narcotic. Following the precedent of the Martin case, we are therefore required to set aside the sentence imposed in the case at bar against appellant for possession of heroin under count one in the amount of five years. The sentence imposed for the offense of sale of heroin under count two in the amount of ten years is affirmed.

Affirmed in part and reversed in part.

SPECTOR, C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD K., and WIGGINTON, JJ„ concur.
Exhibit 32


                   Certification Accompanying Periodic Report
            Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
                              (18 U.S.C. ss. 1350)

The undersigned, Eric Claus, President and Chief Executive Officer of The Great
Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Inc. ("Company"), and Brenda M. Galgano, Senior
Vice President, Chief Financial Officer of our Company, each hereby certifies
that (1) the Quarterly Report of our Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended
September 12, 2009 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 the results of operations of our Company.




Dated:  October 20, 2009               /s/ Eric Claus
                                       --------------
                                       Eric Claus
                                       President and
                                       Chief Executive Officer




Dated:  October 20, 2009               /s/ Brenda M. Galgano
                                       ---------------------
                                       Brenda M. Galgano
                                       Senior Vice President,
                                       Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANICAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM BONTEX,
INC.'S UNAUDITED CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANICIAL STATEMENT FOR THE SIX MONTHS
ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997, AS SET FORTH IN THE COMPANY'S QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM
10-Q, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANICAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                             959
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   11,981
<ALLOWANCES>                                       111
<INVENTORY>                                      7,133
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                21,215
<PP&E>                                          23,328
<DEPRECIATION>                                  12,077
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  33,045
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           18,627
<BONDS>                                          2,667
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              157
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      11,284
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    33,045
<SALES>                                         21,621
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                21,682
<CGS>                                           15,172
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   20,910
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   106
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    59
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 533
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    133
<INCOME-TAX>                                        93
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 40
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        40
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .03
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT NO. 15

To the Board of Directors and Shareholders of
Gerber Scientific, Inc.:





|Re: | Registration Statements on Form S-8,
|--- | ------------------------------------
|    | File No. 2-93695, No. 33-58668,     
|    | No. 333-26177, No. 333-42879,       
|    | No. 333-81447, No. 333-83463,       
|    | No. 333-39754, and No. 333-116991   
|    |                                     
|    | Registration Statement on Form S-3, 
|    | File No. 33-58670                   
|    |                                     

With respect to the subject Registration Statements, we acknowledge our awareness of the use therein of our report dated September 7, 2004 related to our review of interim financial information.



Pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the Securities Act, such reports are not considered a part of a Registration Statement prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared or certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of the Act.

/ s / KPMG LLP

Hartford, Connecticut
September 7, 2004